Two Americas: Ferguson, Missouri Versus the Bundy Ranch, Nevada

As we noted before, we can’t help but to contrast law enforcement’s reaction to protesters in Ferguson, Missouri versus law enforcement’s reaction during the Bundy Ranch fiasco.

1) The Bundy Ranch: On one hand, a large group of armed white men marched in a line of battle while at least one civilian rifleman in a sniper’s perch trained his weapon at Bureau of Land Management officials. In reaction, the government didn’t fire a single round or canister of tear gas, and eventually retreated, conceding the disputed ground to the Bundy militias. It’s important to note that the protesters turned out in support of a man who refused to pay his taxes and grazed his cattle without paying the accompanying fees. This man, Cliven Bundy, and his supporters threatened secession and armed revolt against the United States goverment.

2) Ferguson, Missouri: On the other hand, unarmed African American protesters in Ferguson, enraged and grieving from the death of an (again) unarmed black man named Michael Brown who was shot in the back by a police officer, have been confronted for several days now by police in full military regalia. This time, the rifleman in the sniper’s perch is a police officer — his scope trained on the protesters.

In Ferguson, law enforcement is vastly overreacting in the face of peaceful protesters, while at the Bundy Ranch, law enforcement vastly underreacted in the face of armed secessionists and scofflaws.

What’s wrong with this picture? Better yet, what’s wrong with the following pictures?

LAW ENFORCEMENT IN FERGUSON, MISSOURI:

ferguson_police

ferguson_police_2

ferguson_police_3

ferguson_5

LAW ENFORCEMENT AT THE BUNDY RANCH:

bundy_law

When some of us talk about “two Americas,” this is illustrates it — exactly.

(ht JM Ashby)

  • http://batman-news.com art

    who wrote this eric holder or obama

  • Thomas Impastato

    Yes two Americas under Husain Obama and Erick Holder. The Feds were called out to kill a white rancher and his family, The locals were trying to make peace. In Missouri the feds came to blame the local white police officer. In Nevada no one threw bricks or flaming bottles at the feds, They di not ROIT or LOOT stores. .

  • ecgberht

    You’re a liar. Brown was not shot in the back and the forensics prove it.
    Further, there was not a shot fired by the protesters at the Bundy ranch (though they were well armed), yet shots were fired at police in Ferguson MO, police had bottles of urine thrown at them, as well as Molotov cocktails.
    Get the facts or be seen as a lying fool.

  • Alley Oop

    Comparing well-trained Feds to local yokel wannabe tin soldiers is just…lazy outrage. Picking the low-hanging fruit doesn’t give you insight, it just means you are too comfy in-yer-solip to stretch. Sorry dude.

  • Chris Schoenen

    A few questions and tnoughts…..#1 Mr. Brown wasnt shot in the back so that should be cleared up. #2 The bundy men pointing weapons were arrested…rightfully so. #3. Rocks, Bricks or molotov cocktails were not thrown at police at the bundy ranch (like in ferguson they were) #3 what about store owners who had nothing to do with this……why loot and vandalize your back yard? Speaking of …..iam betting the federal officers stood down at the ranch because the only thing demonstrators could harm out their was sage brush, ground squirrels, or a cactus or two……..little different when there is a population to protect from riots and protecting sagebrush wouldnt you say? But I must make my point clear those men at the bundy ranch were rightfully arrested…..that was batshitcrazy.

  • mwaura1

    This is how divided this country is, you can very well tell who is white and justified to be scared of the “scaring black man” by the comments. Bundy is entitled because he is white while the Ferguson blacks are enemies of the state for they were slaves all the way from the beginning…. go figure.

  • Larry Jay Napier III

    well i hope you’ve done any sort of research on the bundy ranch past white people with guns. its law officials killing 100′s of the rancher’s cattle and attempting to take his land by laws/rules they put in place… well to take his land via gov’t force.

    • http://politicalviews.freeforums.net/ salty

      i lived in the nw for many year where blm manages land owned by the government. people rent that land to add cattle to their inventory. cattle do an enormous amount of damage to property. dont believe me go buy a cow and put it on a piece of property. that property will be worth less in value and take time to recover to ever b used for anything else. Most places the ranchers work hand in hand with state or federal park services and blm to keep local environments user friendly, business friendly and clean, trying all the while not to permanently destroy nature and her resources.

  • https://www.facebook.com/JohnCLindsay John Lindsay

    White privilege yet again.

    • Judith_Priest

      MORMON PATRIARCH white privilege!

      That’s just about the whitest most privileged KIND!

      Some of those states are underground Mormon Theocracies, where Mormons seem to have rights, and be cut slack, that OTHERS do not receive.

    • Chris Schoenen

      Meanwhile in chicago, 60 people are shot and 9 die. IN ONE WEEKEND…….wheres the demonstrations? Where is Al sharpton? Where is the outrage? Just yesterday a black officer shot and killed and unarmed white kid in salt lake city….should we “loot”…..err I mean “demonstrate”?

  • Allbuks Allbuks

    USA = Ukraine.

  • http://democraticprogress.net/ JohnB

    Great article, well done sir.

  • Pernell Babineaux

    America the world is watching! The vile systematic bigotry, hate, and hypocrisy has been unmasked.

  • dudders09

    What this article fails to mention is all the looting, arson, insighting violence, vandalizm, these so called “peaceful” protestors are doing. Just because a criminal throws their hands up, and mindlessly repeats “stop don’t shoot” after stealing a 46inch flat screen, doesnt make them “innocent” now does it.? I dont recall looting, arson, and insighting violence being done at the ranch. In that situation the police conducted a simple risk analysis. They knew their ass was had if they messed with a well organized militia. Most police departments are not well trained and organized.

  • Jon

    Not sure why a civilian training a rifle on the government is viewed as worse than the government training rifles on unarmed civilians by this author.

  • Rob

    ” Ferguson, Missouri: On the other hand, unarmed African American protesters in Ferguson, enraged and grieving from the death of an (again) unarmed black man named Michael Brown who was shot in the back by a police officer”

    Except he wasn’t shot in the back.

    • KarenJ

      Indeed. The wound Michael Brown suffered that was stated by his friend Dorian Johnson was PROBABLY the wound on the posterior part of his right forearm, not his back, as he ran away from Darren Wilson.

      The other wounds in his arm and in his chest were probably suffered as he turned to face the officer with his hands up (according to every witness who’s made statements). The shoulder would was apparently suffered when the head-piercing shot passed through his brow area downward to his jaw and then re-entering the body at his collarbone.

  • Leonard Gresham Sr.

    The sad truth is there has always been two Americas as far
    as law inforcement goes, it’s also the mindset of two many white and black Americans.
    How the law and their mostly white supporters, including the klu Klux klan
    respond to what is happening in Ferguson Missouri is a far cry from law enforcements
    response at the Bundy ranch in Nevada when they were met with deadly force by
    white “resistance” , where were the snipers, armor vehicles tear gas, rubber
    bullets etc.?

    “law enforcement” had the same response when the Black
    Panther Party was at its peak, almost total wipeout of what was a non-violet
    community self-help and self defense group, but when it came to the klan, a
    hate group that has terrorized black America (Jewish and other non white
    Americans as well) for over two hundred years but American law enforcement has
    not to this day “eliminated” that TERRORIST organization.

    Two America’s, one awake and ravishing hell on us, the other
    still asleep and in desperate need of a new direction.

  • Bob Barker

    The obvious answer is that the second amendment works when utilized properly. Organizing, being peaceful, but showing force options seems to get a better result than wildly rampaging through a town in a few block radius.

  • Captain Paintball

    Michael “Doo Doo” Brown was NOT shot in the back. Other than that, the author makes a valid point.

  • Fielding Melish

    How many businesses were looted by the Bundy Ranch protesters? How many people injured?

    On the other hand, tonight’s summary of events for today/tonight at Ferguson, from a news conference minutes ago:

    Summary of brief press-conference:

    Domino’s Pizza, Family Dollar, Self Storage, O’Reilly Auto Parts, McDonalds, all confirmed having been looted. Molotov Cocktails thrown, and police have been shot at and have had bottles thrown at them. Determined to restore peace to Ferguson.

    Q&A How many injured? At least 2-3, a couple shooting victims. Not domestic shootings. No officers injured.

    How many arrests? 7-8 as of right now.

    Additional steps? Operational planning, evaluating resources.

    • Barry_D

      “How many businesses were looted by the Bundy Ranch protesters? How many people injured?”

      If somebody didn’t pay his rent to you for years, lost repeatedly in court, and resisted collection attempts with guns, I’ll bet that you would feel looted.

      • Fielding Melish

        HA, the federal government “feels looted”?? What an interesting twist of semantics.

        “Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th currently, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.” — Ron Paul

        The same tortoise that bureaucrats deemed more important than livestock grazing, is not deemed more important than wind and solar development planned for the area.
        Hmmmm… maybe they’ll soon have all the ranchers and cattle driven off the land on a new ‘Trail of Tears’…..

    • Judith_Priest

      Well … there WERE those two kids, wannabe Bundy Supporters, Jerad and Amanda Miller, who went into Las Vegas and shot two cops, and a random Good Guy With a Gun, dead before Amanda killed herself and Jerad like the coward bitch she was.

      But yeah … aside from the two lunatics who wanted to start a cop-killing war in Vegas, yes, they’re all PRINCES out there on Bundy Ranch.

      SNort.

  • Andy Serres

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=247970#more-247970
    The endangered turtle that brought it all on . . . . . . .
    So many of the little bastards they have to sterilize ‘em now!

  • leslie

    There is nothing peaceful about the protest in ferguson. Whats peaceful about looting businesses that had nothing to do with the shooting of a black man who robbed a gas station then assaulted a police officer after he refused to obey a lawful order given by said officer to remove himself from the middle of the street. The officer should be commended as a hero.

  • triadfreedom

    so what im hearing is that the ferguson folks want to join the militia? Thats what needs to happen, this bullying by state forces will only end when a more organized group of citizens demands it.

  • Jared Abdullah Garrison

    its amazing how they are searching for a justification and keep getting caught in their lies…think america, how many lies stuck to our people? until they said, you know what, fuck it, I’m just going to do what i want to do because they will kill me and lie on me if I’m wearing a damn suit and preaching about peace and equality…they don’t want that, and the ones who do won’t fight the ones who don’t, and its way more of them here than us, so there is no excuse.

  • enlightenment

    2 americas…
    Bundy ranch they obeyed the laws and didn’t destroy their neighborhood

    Ferguson they rioted destroyed their neighborhood looted and destroyed the shop of the guy who was robbed by the deceased teen.

    Bundy ranch people were focused on the federal state and local government, police, BLM and other appropriate organizations.

    Ferguson people are out thrashing, taking advantage of the situation and focusing on everything except for who they need to.

    One America where people feel like they are entitled to what they want
    One America where people are entitled to work for what they want

    Police are over militarized and under policed. Make the officers wear cameras it would solve a lot of problems.

    Police unions are against this though and unions and black people control the Democrats. …… or should I say are controlled by the Democrats.

    • http://www.grounder.com PutinOnTheRitz

      > Bundy ranch they obeyed the laws…

      Which laws were that? The constitution of the United States, which they repeatedly said they did not recognize? The law governing the fees for the use of public lands? The law governing taxes? The law governing the right of BLM officials to be on public lands and not be chased off by gun-toting thugs? Oh, right; they didn’t destroy property by setting it on fire. They destroyed — our land, property of we, the people — it by having their cattle graze on it illegally.

      And, by the way, I’m a Democrat, and as it happens, I do not control one single black person.

      • Calamity

        Don’t bother. These are the same tinfoil hat wearing nutballs that preach secession and not paying taxes, then turn right around and say they never said that. They are a flaming hot mess.

    • Judith_Priest

      You Loony! He didn’t “obey the laws”!

      Pull your head out of his heinie and stop believing everything RW Nutjob Media tells you.

  • SuckitMJ2

    For those that were begging the question about what would happen if black residents of Feguson took up arms like people at the Bundy ranch, here’s your answer: Nothing

    https://twitter.com/VictorCNN/status/500618061159075840/photo/1
    http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/sams-meat-market/

    Us rational folks look forward to your moving of the goal posts again.

  • George Christiansen

    Nevermind the looting. That could have NOTHING to do with why the folks in MO were seen as more of a threat.

    Nope. Both situations are EXACTLY the same except for the race of the people involved.

    • disqus_lWwzrwNaw6

      Let’s see. Scattered looting on the one hand, disrupting a mostly peaceful crowd which had assembled to petition the government for redress of grievances, per the First Amendment (that’s the one that comes right before the Second Amendment, just in case you need reminding).

      Heavily armed vigilantes on the other hand, taking selfies as they snickered and aimed loaded weapons at federal officials during a mass action in defense of a lawbreaking tax-evader.

      Sure. You’re right. I get it. I take your point. These two situations really are radically different.

      • http://www.grounder.com PutinOnTheRitz

        I think you two are actually in agreement…

      • Judith_Priest

        Don’t forget the two Bundy Devotees, Jerad & Amanda Miller, the young couple who’d been up at the ranch for a few weeks. To Bundy’s credit, he asked them to move on, because they were felons.

        They “moved on” into Las Vegas, where they shot a couple of cops who were just having lunch. Shot ‘em dead. Then they also shot a “good guy with a gun” who tried to stop their rampage.

        And then Amanda shot Jerad and herself, as reinforcements arrived from the PD.

        So the fantasy that “The Bundyites are kindly law-abiders, *bullied* by a meanie Federal Government when all they DID was welch and cheat on their grazing rental for 20 years, like ANYBODY would want to do ….”

        … is crap.

  • jmcroce

    I can see why you’d want to compare the two incidents, however, there are some slight but significant differences. The people on the Bundy ranch weren’t doing anything provocative, they simply stood their ground. The protesters in Ferguson, on the other hand, were looting, throwing rocks at the police, firing at the police and a helicopter, and throwing Molotov cocktails – those actions require a response and honestly, given that police departments track record, it’s amazing they chose nonlethal means of dealing with the unruly mob. Second, you’re comparing the response of a police department to that of a federal agency. The federal agency is far better trained and simply employs a better caliber of person than your local police departments. Those federal agents knew that the situation called for restraint, otherwise, the government would be looking at another Ruby Ridge type of incident. The Furguson police aren’t that smart, plus, they don’t have the luxury to just back off and allow looting by mobs.
    So, as I said, I can understand why one might want to compare the two incidents and try to put a racial spin on it, but it simply isn’t there. There is, however, a lesson to be learned by the Bundy incident. Those people were organized. They were just average people, just like the protesters in Furguson, however, they didn’t go crazy and start damaging property, looting, throwing thing at the agents, etc… They simply stood their ground. They had a clear objective and they stuck to it. If the protesters in Furguson were organized like that and things didn’t fall into chaos, you wouldn’t have seen such a harsh response from the police.
    Please don’t mistake my disagreeing with the point that you attempted to make as support for the Furguson police, or the Bundy folks. I think all the facts need to come out and we should allow a jury to decide if the shooting was justified or not. I can understand the police response to the rioting, however, how does a police department have anti personnel vehicles but not dashboard cameras, now that’s amazing.

    • lxxxvc

      “The people on the Bundy ranch weren’t doing anything provocative, they simply stood their ground.”

      Really? From the article: “a large group of armed white men marched in a line of battle while at least one civilian rifleman in a sniper’s perch trained his weapon at Bureau of Land Management officials.”

      If the citizens of Ferguson had done that, I seriously doubt you’d say they “weren’t doing anything provocative.” Maybe you should ask yourself why that is.

      • jmcroce

        What did the Bundy protesters do that was illegal? Were they throwing rocks, Molotov Cocktails, or shooting at the agents? Maybe I misspoke when I said, “provocative,” I’ll give you that, but they weren’t doing anything illegal, whereas the Furguson protesters are doing illegal stuff. So no, I wouldn’t have a problem with the Furguson protesters, even if they were carrying guns, as long as they were organized and not doing anything illegal.

        • lxxxvc

          If a Ferguson (please check your spelling) protester had blatantly pointed a gun at the cops, he’d have been shot dead immediately and you’d be on here typing about how he deserved it. Again, why do you suppose that difference exists?

          • Judith_Priest

            And Bundy WAS “doing something illegal”; he was refusing to pay his grazing fees. That’s money he owes *the rest of us*, the same way that you guys whine when some tax money buys a poor kid lunch, and you all whine that the money is “stolen from you”?

            Then I can also argue that Bundy is “stealing from us.”

    • http://www.grounder.com PutinOnTheRitz

      Just so you know, many of the things you mention — “firing at the police and a helicopter and throwing Molotov cocktails…” — are not supported by the facts. And your last item, Molotov cocktails? Go look at the caption on the picture of the demonstrator hurling a flaming container. That happens to be an incendiary device that the police tossed at the demonstrators, and the person in the picture was merely returning it to its rightful owners. I have yet to see a picture of a demonstrator throwing a Molotov cocktail, and I have yet to hear any credible reports of demonstrators firing on the police. Like New Orleans, after Katrina, most of the reports of the lawlessness of the citizens is proving to be wildly incorrect.

      But pictures of isolated incidents, like looting, played in a continuous loop on the major networks do much to contribute to our collective misunderstanding. Please be more critical the next time you hear reporting on an unfolding incident. It is almost always incendiary and wrong.

      • jmcroce

        I’m in NY, I’m not local to Furguson, MO, so my news sources have been CNN and USAToday mostly. As we know, these are incredibly left leaning sites that would have pointed out the inaccuracies in the police reports of protesters using Molotov Cocktails, shooting at the police, etc… What news source are you using that is reporting to the contrary?

        • http://www.grounder.com PutinOnTheRitz

          “As we know, these are incredibly left leaning sites…” As WHO knows? CNN is completely middle of the road, and USA Today is, if anything, on the conservative side. You really need to provide a citation for your opinion; what passes for “general knowledge” often proves to be untrue.

          To answer your question, I use Google News, which aggregates stories from around the web, regardless of perceived political leaning.

          If you know of reporters on the ground who have provided first-hand accounts of molotov cocktails or gunfire originating with the protesters, I’m listening. Go ahead and provide the citation. What I’m saying is that I’ve been through this before, and the media — regardless of slant, perceived or real — always always reports rumor, and it often turns out to be untrue. Again, the coverage of widespread looting and gunfire and intimidation in New Orleans is a case in point. It turned out that the reports of gunfire were untrue, and that “looting” was not widespread and consisted mostly of people taking necessities (food, water) from stores that were unstaffed. (That’s technically looting, but who were they going to pay? And what was the alternative? Starving to death?)

          So, again, bear in mind that contemporaneous reporting is frequently incendiary and wrong.

          • jmcroce

            Finding good news sources, reliable sources, is difficult. I disagree with you about the slant of CNN and USA Today, but I’m not going to argue the point. When I think about a conservative news group, FOX immediately comes to mind.
            Anyways, I understand what you’re saying, and you’re right to a point, I feel. We have to be skeptical of what we read, we have to question the intention behind any statement, and we certainly have to remember that media will say things in order to generate attention. That being said, the reports of Molotov Cocktails being hurled were widespread, across several news sites. If it were just FOX, then I might be skeptical, but it wasn’t. I went back to look at the news stories that I did read and there were no eyewitness accounts, there were no interview with anyone who claimed to have seen this, however, it doesn’t make it necessarily untrue. At least consider this, do you think, given past riots in African American communities, that it’s out of the realm of possibility? I don’t know much about Katrina, I was deployed at the time and our access to media was severely limited. I do remember the Rodney King riots, however, and I remember the looting and the violence. Looking at that event, and the looting that has occurred so far during these protests/riots that someone shooting at the police or throwing Molotov Cocktails are out of the realm of possibility?
            I’m out of the US Navy now and teach English. One of the lessons that we go over is the media, finding good news sources, and how to interpret the news. We’ve discussed events similar to the current protest, and it’s entirely possible that you could have a thousand peaceful protesters and just two or three people who have some malicious intent who can use the angst of the crowd to turn thing in the wrong direction. If you couple that with the heavy handed police response, you have a recipe for violence.
            So even if we were to disregard the reports of shots being fired at police and Molotov Cocktails being thrown, there is still or was looting going on. Looting when there is access to food and water and other basic necessities. Going back to my original post, is this not a major difference between what is happening in Ferguson and what had happened at the Bundy ranch, and therefore a pivotal reason for the difference in the way that each situation was handled?
            By the way, I enjoy discussing this with you. It’s a tragedy, no doubt. But I think it’s good to discuss things like this, to try to understand one and other.

          • http://www.grounder.com PutinOnTheRitz

            It seems to me that the key difference between the Bundy ranch and Ferguson is what precipitated (or prevented) the violence. In Ferguson, the police provoked the community, first by leaving a dead body in the street for hours. That seems a little like the ancient practice of putting a severed head on a post as a warning. In the Bundy event, law enforcement did not engage with the armed protestors or do anything to provoke them. They kept their distance and ultimately withdrew, whereas in Ferguson, they actively engaged the protesters with a massive display of force, as well as tear gas, rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, etc.

            As always, your mileage may vary. Violence has always been the last resort of the powerless, but there are ways to prevent it and effective (and humane) ways to deal with it when it happens.

  • csw

    The same tactics used in Ferguson were used on the Occupy Wall Street peaceful protest.

    • jmcroce

      I don’t recall the occupy wall st. group looting, throwing rocks, shooting at the police, and throwing Molotov Cocktails.

      • Judith_Priest

        Nope. But the RW media went ahead and SAID they were doing all of that, plus more ridiculousness (camp toilets in tents were called “biohazards”, etc.)

  • mrdthree

    I say “It’s a good thing I’m not in charge because, if I were, every single one of these dickless, ignorant schmucks would be rounded up.”
    Actually its not what I say. Its what you said about Bundy. http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2014/04/bundy-militiamen-planned-to-use-women-as-human-shields.html

  • Subnx

    Buddy wasn’t looting other peoples stores.

    • Judith_Priest

      Yeah he was. He stole 20 years worth of usage fees from You and Me!

  • American Patriot

    This article completely ignores several things. 1) the initial unarmed protest where the protestors were tased, had dogs sicked on them and where a pregnant woman was thrown to the ground. 2) the event where the BLM stood down had Feds that were dressed exactly like the Ferguson police. 3) the BLM backed down because the folks there were armed.

    I love how people like to ignore the truth in order to prove a false point.

    Initial protest: http://youtu.be/LhJ6H9vlEDA

    BLM soldiers: http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIRE-17-BLM-Bundy-April-12-14-GMN-Copyright.jpg

  • aarrgghh87

    The main difference is that at the Bundy Ranch, if the cops had tried to pull what they’re doing in Ferguson, the protesters were willing to use the same amount of force. Bullies back down when you stand up to them with conviction.

  • Ajc1973

    How does a family threaten secession? Only a state can seceed… fear mongering

    This article could have been an excellent opportunity to show the militarization of police against its populace by showing parallels but the author couldnt let go of the political disagreements.. cant see that in the eyes of the state we are just subjects.

    Whether its walking down the street with your hands up.. or not paying a bill the authorities responding with military weapons and tanks is not the answer.

  • GeeOPee

    I witnessed countless of Occupy activists in 2011 on live stream treated heavy handily by the cops all around the US, and that includes tear gas. There was an Occupy activists in Oakland who was hit in the head with a tear gas canister. He ended up in a coma for a few days. He was an Iraqi War vet. I’m not pointing this out to disrespect cops. I have cops in my family. They have a tough job and part of the reason for such an over-reaction sometimes is due to the plethora of guns on the streets. It has made being a cop very dangerous and made some paranoid with good reason. But its not the cops making these decision on how to handle protesters. Its the politicians. The Feds were told to back off the Bundy Ranch crazies as a means of de-escalating the situation. Sadly for the people of Ferguson the local politicians did not do that. It was again the Feds taking over in Ferguson that helped calm down the situation. I’m glad that Ferguson is getting media coverage, but it makes me angry that it took another black kid getting shot for the media and Democratic politicians to address the militarization of the local police. They were silent when Occupy protesters were being beaten, tazed, pepper sprayed and tear gased all across the US. They were also silent when journalists were being arrested during the Occupy protests too. The reason for the silence was that the FBI was coordinating with state and local officials to get rid of Occupy. I’m sorry but this is beyond hypocritical by the Democratic Party, the President and the likes of MSNBC to capitalize on Ferguson while the same thing was happening all around the country in 2011, which they ignored for the most part. I guess its better late than never but its still frustrating to observe.

  • yeahok

    Ferguson definitively proves to me Militias are a load of crap. Groups from across the country rallied around a tax dodging criminal and actively threatened Federal officers to protest government overreach. Yet not very long after, when the government actually does threaten Constitutional liberties, they’re nowhere to be seen. This wasn’t some fear mongering thought exercise about the some day when the gubmint comes for their guns. There was verifiable Constitutional violations in Ferguson. The press was harrassed, and targetted. Freedom of assembly was met with a militarized response.

    So where were those staunch defenders of the Constitution? Where were the Oathkeepers? Praetorean Guard? White Mountain Militia? I guess they were too busy aiming their weapons at the little brown kids at the border.

    • jmcroce

      The police department in Furguson is a local police department, not a federal agency. The police can/do violate a person’s Constitutional rights, the federal government has the ability to take them away. These are two different situations and trying to compare them based on racial aspects is disingenuous at best. If the people on the Bundy ranch were acting like the animals in Furguson are, it would have been a very different story.

      • yeahok

        Reread my post. race was never mentioned. My post was strictly about how Militias seem pretty selective in their support of Constitutional rights. Government oppression is government oppression regardless of whether the Feds do it or if your local sheriff does it.

    • SuckitMJ2
  • Andy Serres

    People that have owned land that has been
    nationalized by the Feds have no right to
    protest the confiscatory taxes imposed on
    them – even though the land was in their
    family’s name for 100s of years.

    Racial minorities can justifiably become
    lawless if they think they’ve been dissed
    independent of due process.

    Clive Bundy paid his taxes, just not additional grazing fees in dispute. Normally this would be a civil matter, NOT a criminal matter. Nonpayment of fees would simply cause the government to put a lien on his property.

    Al Sharpton owes the government way more in back taxes, and we don’t see SWAT teams on Sharptons front doorstep tazing his family members.

    • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

      We didn’t see anybody tazing Bundy’s family members either. We saw agents trying to temporarily move his cattle off the disputed land, so as not to accue more of the grazing fees he didn’t want to pay. When they came to do that aka THEIR JOBS, they were greeted by self-appointed militiaman armed with weapons for greater in number and power than what they came with.

      Yeah, getting into a standoff over grazing fees is stupid. So why did BUNDY do it? If his case was so clear-cut, face it in court and let it decide once and for all. Don’t call for secession and have anti-authority nutjobs (one of which involved in a kill spree that left three dead) as your main supporters.

      • Andy Serres

        You didn’t see it, therefore it didn’t happen?
        The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and U.S. National Park Service confirmed in a statement that one protester was hit with a stun gun. Bundy’s son, his sister knocked to the ground.
        Bundy was in compliance with the grazing agreement, until BLM changed it by severely restricting the grazing allotment. Having pushed the rest of the ranchers off the range by the same tactics, Bundy was about the last man standing. Take a stand or go broke & loose it all.
        Supposedly this was to protect a turtle, that there were so many of that the government shut down the facility & disposed of the turtles. Miraculously, Harry Reid’s, and his cronies ranches, were carved out of the protected parcel with all of it’s restrictions. Helps to have a buddy in the BLM. All this, along with his sons solar deal with the Chinese.
        The same kind of deal California is getting with it’s farmers water rights, to supposedly protect a insignificant snail darter type fish.
        Between this, and Climate change bullsh*t, along with Keystone crap, Liberals will not rest until they have reduced this country to a third world socialist, dung heap, with themselves on top of the pile of it.

        • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

          Wow, start off with a stupid cliche, and devolve into the typical ramblings. At least you tried to sound sensible.

          Again, if Bundy had such a strong case against the BLM, why not take it to court? It isn’t like he is some small time operation that can’t afford to take on the government. He CERTAINLY isn’t that. Did he think the county or state judges wouldn’t rule in his favor? Why would that be?

          Unless, of course, he made a habit of talking about how he doesn’t respect any federal authority, and like it or not, without federal support, local authorities can’t do much (for example, the immigrant crisis). In fact, Bundy’s whole defense was that the land belonged to the state, not the federal government that he didn’t believe in. He stopped paying his fees and let his permit expire because he didn’t recognize anything above the state. All this about the BLM changing his fees is bogus because even if they didn’t, he still didn’t’ recognize them as responsible for that land.

          As far as the rest, you need a nice eucalyptus bath and some soft music, because you are too wound up. May I suggest bubblegenius.com? They make great eco-friendly vegan products that smell great!

          • Andy Serres

            You seem to know quite a bit about “fairy” baths.
            Simple facts seem to elude you though . . . . . . .

      • Judith_Priest

        That kill spree, of those 2 young Bundy Fans who decided to shoot up Las Vegas, killed *5* people.

        They killed the 2 cops while they were having lunch.
        They killed the innocent civilian bystander, the “good guy with the gun”.
        And when more cops showed up, Brave (ha!) Amanda shot Brave (ha!) Jerad and then turned the gun on herself.

        5 dead.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Bundy’s family didn’t own the land 100 years ago. They weren’t even in Nevada then. He lied. Also, they tried to settle it as a civil matter. The court ordered his cattle remowed, but when the government tried to carry out that order, Bundh and his armed goons threatened to start another civil war over it.

      • Andy Serres

        Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

        The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state.

        Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square).

        If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

        In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

        Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.The Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state.

        • D_C_Wilson

          “Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years”

          You keep saying that is if that will somehow magically make it true. It isn’t. He lied.

          • Andy Serres

            http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/blm-releases-bundy-cattle-after-protesters-block-southbound-i-15
            “The Bundy ranch itself, where cattle operations have existed since the late 1800s” (an unbroken chain of grazing despite who owned it)

            “It’s not about the turtle or the cactus or the spotted owl. This is all about the federal government overstepping its bounds like it always does and thinking it owns the world,”
            Rob Mrowka, an ecologist with Nevada’s Center for Biological Diversity, said Bundy has been hurting the desert tortoise and living free off the land for decades. It was Mrowka’s organization that sued in federal court to kick-start the government into protecting the land and the tortoise.

          • robertbwinn

            Not all of Bundy’s ancestors had the last name of Bundy. I know this is a difficult concept.

        • D_C_Wilson

          Oh, and here’s some history for you:

          The state accepted from Congress the stipulation in its enabling act that “the Constitutional Convention must disclaim all rights to unappropriated public land in Nevada.” The state constitution accordingly ordained: ” That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands . . .”

          -

          http://lands.nv.gov/forms/chapter1.pdf

          Nevada’s constitution clearly cedes control over public land to the federal government.

          • Andy Serres

            “Unappropriated” public lands . . . ???

            A direct violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution

            The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

            Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
            Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8).

            Nothing more.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Except the land was owned by the federal government before Nevada even became a state. By adopting the above clause in their state constatitution, the Nevada legislature was agreeing to give up that land in perpetuity. It never belonged to the state, so it never had to be ceded to the federal government. No matter how much you stamp your feet and hold your breath, your little racist hero is still on the wrong side of the law.

          • D_C_Wilson

            And you need to read more of the Constitution:

            Article IV, Section 3:

            “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
            but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

            The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
            needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

            The land belonged to the US government from when Nevada was a territory.

          • Andy Serres

            “needful Rules and Regulations”

            nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States,

            “or of any particular State.”

          • D_C_Wilson

            And the state reliinquished its claim while Congress did pass “needful Rules and Regulations.” That you don’t like the result does not make it unconstitutional.

          • Andy Serres

            My liking it has nothing to do with it.

            Being written so as to screw a state out of its rights to the land inside it’s borders makes it so.

          • D_C_Wilson

            The state agreed to it. No give backs. Deal with it.

          • Andy Serres

            Coercion does not make it legal

            Despite what Democrats say :)

          • D_C_Wilson

            Claiming there was coercion without evidence, much like claiming the Bundy family controlled land for over a hundred years, doesn’t make it true. Again, you can stamp your feet all you want, but this issue was decided 150 years ago. Deal with it.

          • Andy Serres

            Writing a new law that is in direct violation of the existing law of the land and it’s intent; to gain something you shouldn’t by law, without compensation, then telling said party to take it or leave it, because you have the power to kill the deal. . . . . . . . I’d call it coercion.

            Kinda sounds like todays politics . . . . . . Obama-care . . . . . .

            Shove it through by any means possible . . . . . bribes . . . . . threats . . . . . unlawful changes . . . . . . all sorts of crooked sh*t . . . . . we’ll deal with it and the legalities later . . . . . .

          • D_C_Wilson

            Awww. Keep stamping your feet. Maybe you’ll get to stay up an extra hour tonight.

          • Andy Serres

            http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=247970#more-247970

            The endangered turtle that brought it all on . . . . . . .
            So many of the little bastards they have to sterilize ‘em now!
            The holy grail of Liberal Bullsh*tters , endangered species.
            + Global Warming, Fracking, Keystone, on & on & on
            Liberal Socialist power grabs, egged on by ignorant libs.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Squirrel!

    • Judith_Priest

      You sure bought the whole load, didn’t you?

      Bundy’s family didn’t own that land until the 1950s. His Mom had lived in the area in the 30s, I believe, but the “100 years it was ours” thing was hyperbole.

  • Icha Icha Alanna

    It’s easy for the popo to be big big men when facing unarmed civilians.

  • Brian Song

    This only proves why the 2nd Amendment is so important. It is power to the people just like the 1st Amendment is. If the protesters of Ferguson were carrying guns legally and didn’t do anything stupid like looting, I guarantee this would have ended in a peaceful stand off. Nobody from either side would want any extra blood shed.
    Just ranting now..Take away our guns… and what stops the government from taking away any other right we have that they may see as a threat. What if they decide words and hateful speech cause people to harm others and act in violence(which it does)? Will they try to control our speech? What if they feel certain religions do the same thing?…

    • acupunk

      So, you are saying that if a community of african americans marched on Furgeson Missouri with guns (peacefully) there would be no bloodshed? Nice fantasy world you are living in.

      • Brian Song

        Yes and white NRA members would support them.. so long as they are carrying legally.

        • Officer Prudence

          You don’t really believe that, do you? Is there any evidence that this would have been the case? Has the NRA come out in support of such an action? I can’t find any details as such.

          • Brian Song

            NRA does not car

  • Capitalist_Libertarian

    Bundy’s supporters, although armed, never fired a shot. Brown’s “supporters”, on the other hand, were trashing and stealing from people who had nothing to do with the shooting, yet you’re supporting the violent protesters? Let’s see how you like it when they burn and loot your place.

    About Bundy’s cattle grazing on gov’t land.
    a) His cattle were doing what every other wild herbivore does. If his cattle was seized due to grazing on public land, then every other wild herbivore should be driven out of gov’t land as well.
    b) Before you start whining about that freaking tortoise that was apparently “endangered” by a few cows eating grass, do remember that Harry Reid’s son was trying to make a deal to bring chinese company onto that land. It wasn’t until the deal almost became reality that the feds took action.
    c) This is all about control and tyranny. Look at the war on drugs. The gov’t claims pot is bad for you when scientific facts prove it does the opposite and we’re wsting billions on this unsuccessful “war”. If anything, the war on drugs is what helped to contribute to African American being profiled like this.

    • Jonny Overcat

      “His cattle were doing what every other wild herbivore does. If his cattle was seized due to grazing on public land, then every other wild herbivore should be driven out of gov’t land as well.”

      Get. Fucking. Real.

      Bundy’s cattle aren’t “wild”, they are privately owned domesticated livestock that are raised for a private profit-making enterprise. But of course, you already know that.

      • Johnny Obvious

        So this means that since he is making a profit by his cattle grazing, he should have to pay the government a share of his money? Oh wait, the argument will be BECAUSE IT’S THE LAW .. which boils down to the only response people can make, being there is no logical explanation of why the government gets to levee fees for this land, fees that go right in their pockets as opposed to paying for the cleanup of the mega-disaster that these grazing cattle have caused in said open field.

        • rmoose01

          The federal government gets to level fees for this land because of you know, the property clause, that thing in the constitution which gives Congress the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting territory or property belonging to the united states. (U.S. Const. Art. 4 Sec. 3 Cl. 2.) That authority was then properly delegated by Congress to the BLM and before that to the the Dept. of Interior, GLO, and Grazing Service through statute. The BLM then promulgated regulations for grazing cattle on federal lands, which before being passed were available for public comment in the federal register. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that, its just the normal process of American governance.

          • Johnny Obvious

            That was an impressive reply rmoose! I’ve never before witnessed anyone use such a long winded but educated way of saying “BECAUSE IT’S THE LAW”
            Way to go!

      • Capitalist_Libertarian

        Yes I know and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

        • Mary Martin

          Cap: You don’t see much do you? You think Bundy would support you if you were trying fcuk over the feds? He got his, and he’s willing to sacrifice innocents to keep it.

          • Capitalist_Libertarian

            No one ever forced his supporters to go to his ranch. They did it via their free will. Oh I see a lot, an emerging police state.

          • Capitalist_Libertarian

            His supporters went there through their free will, and I see a lot, an emerging police state that is.

      • robertbwinn

        You don’t think they are wild? Ask the BLM employees who tried to round them up.

    • Mary Martin

      Capitalist: Was Reid’s son trying to let the Chinese eat the grass on public land for free?? At the very least, the Chinese would have stepped over the poor turtles.

      • Capitalist_Libertarian

        The chinese are taking over us via the debt. Read about how much we owe to china and how our gov’t is collaborating with them.

  • anonymouse

    It’s because the police are fighting to keep control in Ferguson while they realize they lost it in Nevada.

  • Shitfur Braenz

    Proof you need arms to protect your rights///

  • Joshua Sennett

    So, Bundy cattle being taken by the government for grazing on Public land is the same as violent protests that are destroying private businesses and hospitalizing people? The Militia, although prepared for violence, did not commit violent acts whereas the protesters are trashing their communities and stealing from other private citizens. Should LE just let them keep looting? This isn’t about a kid who was shot, this is theivery under the disguise of protest, that is all…

    • MotherSkadi

      Quit! That was not free land, there were grazing fees involved and Bundy refused to pay them, even after losing his court case. The militia were clearly ready to engage in violence with the BLM officials. But no one took them on. You want to talk thievery? How about not paying your fees for grazing on public lands.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        But, but, but— white people don’t “steal”, they “procure”. It’s really thrifty to just procure shit when you want it and don’t want to pay for it. O.K., so that’s how thieves think, but they’re white and think themselves highly principled.

        And round we go.

      • Capitalist_Libertarian

        Bundy’s supporters, although armed, never fired a shot. Brown’s “supporters”, on the other hand, were trashing and stealing from people who had nothing to do with the shooting, yet you’re supporting the violent protesters? Let’s see how you like it when they burn and loot your place.

        Oh, and about Bundy’s cattle grazing on gov’t land.
        a) His cattle were doing what every other wild herbivore does. If his cattle was seized due to grazing on public land, then every other wild herbivore should be driven out of gov’t land as well.
        b) Before you start whining about that freaking tortoise that was apparently “endangered” by a few cows eating grass, do remember that Harry Reid’s son was trying to make a deal to bring chinese company onto that land. It wasn’t until the deal almost became reality that the feds took action.
        c) This is all about control and tyranny. Look at the war on drugs. The gov’t claims pot is bad for you when scientific facts prove it does the opposite and we’re wsting billions on this unsuccessful “war”. If anything, the war on drugs is what helped to contribute to African American being profiled like this.

  • notpilgrims2

    We need to have one America. It is shameful that the feds didn’t take back Bundy’s land. It is shameful that they didn’t use force against Bundy and his mob. It is good that they are trying to protect the city of Ferguson from looters who looted Wal Mart. But they must apply those same tactics to Bundy as well.

    • Doug Wakeman

      Take back Bundy’s land??? What the Hell is the Federal government doing owning or controlling one speck of land outside of what was allotted to it in Washington DC? And, it is time for us to take that back! The Federal government has violated its contract with the states and this cancerous parasitic entity needs to be abolished now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        Liens on property is a perfectly normal and legal response to failure to pay income tax.

        • Doug Wakeman

          Perhaps you should take at least a cursory look at the Bundy case before making a fool of yourself.

  • Doug Wakeman

    This absurd moral equivalence between a case of civil disobedience against a tyrannical government and riotous looting exposes a mind so poisoned by Leftist moral relativism as to have been rendered incapable of any level of rational thought!

    Thanks to iowntheowrld for linking to this belly laugh at Progressive insanity!

    • HilaryB

      Sorry, but there was a huge police presence before the looting began. SWAT is always sent out any time a large group of African-Americans get together to protest something.

    • godlessmath

      The protestors who were attacked by police were not looting, and were in fact protesting by putting their hands in the air. On the other hand, Clive Bundy was stealing from public lands and threatening officers with armed, physical force.

      • Doug Wakeman

        Are you really that utterly clueless about the mayhem in Ferguson? Rioting, looting, throwing rocks at police and shooting. Have you seen the photos of the devastation to property? And you take one propaganda photo for your knowledge of events? And Clive Bundy’s stand against the outrageous attempt at seizure of his land by the Federal Government to benefit the financial interests of a U. S. Senator was a stand for all of us against tyranny and foul corruption including those clueless drones such as yourself.

        • godlessmath

          ” Rioting, looting, throwing rocks…”

          Police were attacking people who were doing no such thing. They were gassing and shooting rubber bullets at people indiscriminately, shooting tear gas at what were clearly journalists under bright lights. We have video of police using force (including sonic blasters) against people who were only standing in the street.

          In terms of destruction of property, this is ironic, because Clive Bundy in fact stole more from the public than the few people who were looting in Ferguson. Even if Bundy had a legitimate grievance, Bundy had plenty of peaceful ways to resolve his issues. Why didn’t he organize his own protests against the government, and the Senator? Oh, right, because that would require Bundy actually convincing peaceful people that his cause is worthy; the only people Bundy could convince are other wackos who take every excuse to engage in armed violence.

        • Jonny Overcat

          “Clive Bundy’s stand against the outrageous attempt at seizure of his land by the Federal Government”

          Oh Jesus fucking Christ teabagger, you don’t even have the most basic grasp of the facts about Bundy’s issues with the feds.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      What fucking “tyrannical government”, cream puff? You think you live under tyranny? You must be really sensitive.

      • Doug Wakeman

        Maybe if you were being driven off the land that your family had ranched for generations by faceless unaccountable federal bureaucracies you would recognize tyranny. What is happening to the Bundys and thousands of other land owners all over the western plains is the very definition of tyranny that is defined in a document drafted in 1776 with which I am certain you are totally unfamiliar. When they come for your liberty, you will squeal the Niemöller lament like a little girl if you have the intellectual capacity..

        • Mary Martin

          Doug: If those rancher’s do not want to abide by the rules most rancher’s follow, then let them pack their shit and move to another country so they exercise their rights. Maybe you don’t mine paying taxes for his personal greed, some of us mind very much.

    • Zarles

      You are a staggering idiot.

  • No bs

    Totally different. Plus the ranchers weren’t looting and burning their neighborhood. I’m all for standing up for what’s right but looting takes away from the objective.

    Both instances of feds/cops going too far. Plus both had problems with the press being there and limiting the press access. That should be a concern.

    • HilaryB

      No. They were just armed and ready to shoot upon law enforcement officers. If Bundy and his supporters were black, they’d have been taken out.

  • Seola
  • usa3

    stupid argument. The two situations are completely different. Typical race baiting BS

    • Aaron M. Litz

      Yes, the situations are totally different. The people at the Bundy situation were actually armed and eager to start something over a bullshit legal claim, as opposed to the citizens of Ferguson who are unarmed and have legitimate grievances.

      • eccles11

        Moral of the story. If you don’t pose a threat to the cops, they will just roll you. Same contrast can be made with the Tea Party protests, and OWS. One had guns, the other got the ever loving shit beaten out of them.

  • mcart

    No one is discussing the difference in training at various levels of law enforcement. I think this comparison is apples and oranges. Two very different situations. The training is different at the Federal level then at the local level for law enforcement. The Justice Dept. may have to go in and retrain these yahoos in MO to actually tell them what civil rights are for ALL U.S. citizens. They were harassing and arresting reporters for no reason. They were threatening people in their own yards on their own property. Many of them need to be fired or retired and the rest retrained.This sort of racism has happened before and often, and the retraining can take years.

    • Setting It Straight

      “Civil rights are for ALL U.S. citizens.”

      Yes, too often, when blacks are involved it is treated as a special case, as if blacks were asking for special rights. The difference between Ferguson and Cliven Bundy is the difference between a white man illegally using property that did not belong to him (government freeloading), while claiming his 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and that right being respected; while in Ferguson protesters are exercising their right to protest and are being physically attacked, one group of people on private property. The man was on land that actually belonged to him and the police nevertheless threw teargas at him.

      It wasn’t until journalists also started being gassed that politicians *really* started caring. It was as if you had to be a *different kind* [read: color] of American citizen for them to see the violation of property and free speech rights to be significant.

    • Aaron M. Litz

      There is that aspect too, yes. The Federal agents at the Bundy situation were much more reasonable and knew not to escalate things, as opposed to the bumblefuck local yokel redneck cops in Ferguson who are just itching to show those upptiy blacks who’s in charge.

      It kind of throws the whole Conservative anti-Federal and pro-local stance into a new dimension, doesn’t it? Highly trained and competent Federal agents as opposed to incompetent, racist local cops who make a huge mess even worse.

  • SuckitMJ2

    One group was armed and one is unarmed. One threatened violence if violence was initiated against them whereas the other began destroying the property of civilians that had nothing to do with the actions of law enforcement.

    If you can’t see the difference then you are forever stuck in an echo chamber of imagination. But go on, tell me how stealing rims and cell phones is a noble gesture in the fight for social justice.

    • Setting It Straight

      Those same business owners as well as the police have publicly stated that the looters were largely not from the area and distinguished between Ferguson residents who were protesting and criminal opportunitists.

      Can you tell the difference between protesters and looters, or are you only able to see brown skin?

      • Johnny Obvious

        Publically stated that the looters were largely not from the area? I’m sorry, I can’t help but laugh at your attempt at justification. I can see it now – “Excuse me sir, before you loot my store and set it on fire, would you mind telling us your name and city of residence?” Were they checking ID’s at the door before the free-for-all began? Get real. Just because a couple people stated that they saw Illinois license plates doesn’t mean jack shit when it boils down to hundreds of people raiding businesses. Please, enlighten us all and tell us how they distinguished Ferguson people from out-of-towner looters. A third eye in the center of the forehead?

        • Mary Martin

          Johhny: You and a few others saw hundreds of people looting. Honest people saw a small groups of losers takening other people property. The whole place would have been a total stain if what you say were true. Whites looted the American Indians almost into extinction. How can we distinguish who did that??

  • Evangeline

    I thought about the Cliven Bundy Militia being coddled by the sheriff, BLM, police.After the militia had the BLM in their rifle scopes & took a town hostage, stopped drivers demanding id.Law enforcement response..crickets. Then you have the police state of Ferguson. Many more examples but this is stark. I usually find Cesca’s articles at HuffPo.This is one that needs more viewers. The pictures speak volumes,

    • SuckitMJ2

      False equivalence. People at the Bundy ranch were tazed and hit by passing vehicles and did not erupt into violence, let alone violence against those that had nothing to do with the situation. I stand with Ferguson in their efforts against the police, but to condone the rioting or to so selfishly try to frame the militarization of police in the prism of identity politics is bullshit.

      • Evangeline

        Good for you. We view this differently. Show me them being hit by vehicles. I think you made it up. No one was hospitalized. If true, it doesn’t justify them killing cops. You do know 2 former members of the bundy militia killed cops sitting in a restaurant, then themselves, don’t you? I’d say they reacted violently which makes your point moot. Militia getting tazed or grazed by a vehicle does nothing to change my opinion of them as trigger happy inbreds who should be arrested for threatening to kill LE as shown in photos above. But they haven’t been arrested now have they?

        • SuckitMJ2

          Awww yes, goalpost moving. That is SHOCKING. I’m aware of the kids that showed up there who were not well received and asked to leave who later went on a rampage, yes – are you really going to play 6 degrees of Reverend Wright in order to cling on to your identity politics narrative?

          “does nothing to change my opinion of them as trigger happy inbreds “

          So you’re a bigot – that’s cute.

          • Doug Wakeman

            Also notice how these libs who would tar all patriots with the brush of a few nutjobs would call you every name in the book for conflating terrorism with Islam.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            We don’t call lawless people who hate the people’s government “patriots”.

            Obama was elected twice— get the fuck over it.

          • Andy Serres

            We don’t call lawless people who hate the people’s government “patriots”. ? ? ? ? ?

            Someone needs to brush up on their “American” history . . . . . .

            Obama was elected twice by clueless twits who think Socialism is “the bomb”.

      • Pocotocopo

        Surely you have video of such a thing happening?

  • Dave

    But, but, but, John Roberts says there isn’t any racism anymore……DERP.

  • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

    I support the citizens of Ferguson just like I supported the Bundy Ranch folks. Down with authoritarianism.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      So, you think it’s “authoritarian” to prohibit someone from grazing on public lands when they haven’t been paying the fee? What other kinds of welfare do you think should be provided to anti-government dweebs who think they shouldn’t have to pay taxes or pay for what they use?

      • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

        I was speaking more to the heavy handed approach by the feds not the incident that led to it. Like in MO I’m sure the police will say that they are justfied in their actions because some people looted a few days ago and some people threw some rocks at cops. Still doesn’t justify the show of force or extreme militarism.

      • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

        I was speaking more to the heavy handed approach by the feds not the incident that led to it. Like in MO I’m sure the police will say that they are justfied in their actions because some people looted a few days ago and some people threw some rocks at cops. Still doesn’t justify the show of force or extreme militarism.

      • Johnny Obvious

        Please explain to me why anyone should pay taxes to the government for this – without using the terms “because it’s the law” or “because you have to” or even “I do, so you have to also”
        Isn’t the very definition of “public lands” , land belonging in ownership to the public? So if this isn’t just another case of government extortion, please explain to me why the taxes or fees do not go to the public? Or perhaps some fund towards public/community improvement? I pay enough taxes. They probably feel the same way. If you feel that the government needs more money, feel free to anti up more of your own. In any case – did the government really need to come in and make it a situation where people could’ve lost their lives for a handful of pocket change?

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          Yes. Public lands belong to every citizen of the U.S.— not Clive Bundy— and it takes money to maintain the lands, there not being a lot of volunteers providing labor and resources to do so.

          Lot’s of “free marketers” sure like them some free stuff.

          • Johnny Obvious

            It’s amazing how that land has made it through thousands of years of similar animals grazing on it without government maintenance. It’s almost like cattle, buffalo and other animals of the sort grazing and fertilizing the land are part of nature’s natural plan or some crazy nonsense like that!

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            A law is in place. Bundy broke that law. He has no right to decide when he does and does not feel like paying on behalf of his bitter feelings toward the federal government.

          • Johnny Obvious

            “Please explain to me why anyone should pay taxes to the government for this – without using the terms “because it’s the law” or “because you have to” or even “I do, so you have to also”” … Fail.

          • D_C_Wilson

            There’s a big difference between migratory herds of buffalo briefly grazing on the land before moving on and bringing hundreds of cattle onto the same plot of land day after day.

          • Johnny Obvious

            I suppose that would boil down to just how many cattle there was, and how big of a plot of land they were grazing on. Was it 100 cattle on a 1000 acre plot of land? Or 100 cattle on a 2 acre plot of land? People will find any reason they can to bitch and moan about someone trying to get one over on “the man” and his taxes. In this case, the argument is that Bundy was destroying turf? How about the thousands upon thousands of fracking and drilling operations that are turning our entire planet into swiss cheese, poisoning/contaminating water tables etc – but we’re going to try to justify a potentially bloody confrontation with the man over some grass! Makes perfect sense to me. Just because it is a law (which by the way was made by man and not God), doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

          • D_C_Wilson

            If you don’t like a law, we have a process in place to get it changed.

            Hint: It doesn’t involve threatening to shoot federal law enforcement agents.

          • Johnny Obvious

            Because we all know just how simple it is to reform a law once it’s in place.

          • D_C_Wilson

            So, your defense of promoting violent sedition is “democracy is hard.”?

            Wow.

      • Johnny Obvious

        Please explain to me why anyone should pay taxes to the government for this – without using the terms “because it’s the law” or “because you have to” or even “I do, so you have to also”
        Isn’t the very definition of “public lands” , land belonging in ownership to the public? So if this isn’t just another case of government extortion, please explain to me why the taxes or fees do not go to the public? Or perhaps some fund towards public/community improvement? I pay enough taxes. They probably feel the same way. If you feel that the government needs more money, feel free to anti up more of your own. In any case – did the government really need to come in and make it a situation where people could’ve lost their lives for a handful of pocket change?

      • Johnny Obvious

        Please explain to me why anyone should pay taxes to the government for this – without using the terms “because it’s the law” or “because you have to” or even “I do, so you have to also”
        Isn’t the very definition of “public lands” , land belonging in ownership to the public? So if this isn’t just another case of government extortion, please explain to me why the taxes or fees do not go to the public? Or perhaps some fund towards public/community improvement? I pay enough taxes. They probably feel the same way. If you feel that the government needs more money, feel free to anti up more of your own. In any case – did the government really need to come in and make it a situation where people could’ve lost their lives for a handful of pocket change?

      • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

        And to answer your question I don’t support personal or corporate welfare.

      • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

        And to answer your question I don’t support personal or corporate welfare.

      • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

        And to answer your question I don’t support personal or corporate welfare.

  • Johnny Obvious

    It seems silly and short sighted to me that so many people want to pull the race card when looking at these two encounters. The first thing that came to my mind was:
    Situation 1 – Government tries to exert injustice and force, and is met by armed civilians. Situation 2 – Government tries to exert injustice and force, and is met by unarmed civilians.
    This is why we cannot let the government disarm civilians and take our right to bear arms away. This is what happens when there is no one able to check the government (who anti-gun activists would entrust to have all firearms). The people will be left powerless in the face of the very unchecked militarized force that they didn’t realize they were begging for through passing laws that would take our firearm rights away. Criminals will always have guns. The government will always have guns. Anti-gun laws will force peaceful hardworking people like you and I to be at the mercy of two very large and very real greed driven forces (criminals and the government), and we will be the only ones without weapons to defend ourselves, protect our families, and stand up for our civil rights.
    It’s not about racist cops. It’s not just about Michael Brown.
    Do you think the police would have reacted this way if every protestor in that crowd would have peacefully demonstrated, standing their ground, weapon in hand? This is all happening because it could. The federal government supplying our police departments with military vehicles and weapons was strategically planned. For moments like this. For moments like this that may happen in the future. Ironic. The government forces us to pay them money (taxes) so they can militarize our police forces to shoot us if we protest their despicable actions.
    This is not about skin color. The militarization of our local police, and their actions once given such warlike equipment is very, very serious problem for all of us. WAKE UP.

    • CaliKate

      The Ferguson cop shot an *unarmed* black man which is how this all began. (If Michael Brown had been armed, the police would be issuing press releases about how they had justifiably shot a criminal/thug.)

      If black protesters showed up armed, the police would use that as justification for shooting them because they’d be “thugs.” So yes this is related to race.

      • Johnny Obvious

        You’re absolutely right CaliKate. If the protestors would’ve showed up armed as a violent mob instead of a stand your ground protest, looting and burning businesses then yes, they probably would’ve been shot and rightfully so.
        You can’t possibly believe that “police” (as in all of them) would just collectively nod to each other in agreement and fire on a crowd of people who aren’t breaking the law just because they are black. If you do, there is no point in me commenting on this thread anymore, as there is no need since you already have it all figured out… or not

        • CaliKate

          You wrote “would have peacefully demonstrated, standing their ground, weapon in hand?” That’s the point that I was addressing, that if the mostly-black crowd had shown up peacefully with firearms in hand, that would be provocation enough for the police to fire in “self-defense.” Because that wouldn’t be a peaceful action in their eyes. Armed black people = non-peaceful violent thugs with criminal intentions. Armed white people = peaceful protestors with good freedom-loving intentions.

          I agree with you about the need to confront the militarization of the police, but there’s much more going on in this case.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Is there anything more peaceful than standing around, weapon in hand? Perhaps planting land mines around a residential neighborhood?

        • CaliKate

          You wrote “would have peacefully demonstrated, standing their ground, weapon in hand?” That’s the point that I was addressing, that if the mostly-black crowd had shown up peacefully with firearms in hand, that would be provocation enough for the police to fire in “self-defense.” Because that wouldn’t be a peaceful action in their eyes. Armed black people = non-peaceful violent thugs with criminal intentions. Armed white people = peaceful protestors with good freedom-loving intentions.

          I agree with you about the need to confront the militarization of the police, but there’s much more going on in this case.

        • CaliKate

          You wrote “would have peacefully demonstrated, standing their ground, weapon in hand?” That’s the point that I was addressing, that if the mostly-black crowd had shown up peacefully with firearms in hand, that would be provocation enough for the police to fire in “self-defense.” Because that wouldn’t be a peaceful action in their eyes. Armed black people = non-peaceful violent thugs with criminal intentions. Armed white people = peaceful protestors with good freedom-loving intentions.

          I agree with you about the need to confront the militarization of the police, but there’s much more going on in this case.

    • CaliKate

      The Ferguson cop shot an *unarmed* black man which is how this all began. (If Michael Brown had been armed, the police would be issuing press releases about how they had justifiably shot a criminal/thug.)

      If black protesters showed up armed, the police would use that as justification for shooting them because they’d be “thugs.” So yes this is related to race.

  • Joey Buhrer

    Is there really that much contrast? Seems like aggressive conservative white guys with guns using violence to bully everyone else around in both cases.

    • D_C_Wilson

      One group of aggressive conservative white guys has badges.

  • silhouete2

    This story is spot on. White people threaten to overthrow the govt or threaten to shoot federal officials–they get a muted response from the police and an entire news network that supports them. Unarmed black man gets killed by police, the community protests, the police recreate a military state by their presence and actions in town. Last night I truly thought I was watching coverage on Syria or some other place–not the USA. This is nuts. But it does show how things work here in bright colors. It also proves that the 2nd Amendment only applies to white people. Pure and simple.

    • SuckitMJ2

      “the community protests”

      Protesting is not violently destroying innocent civilians property and stealing rims and cell phones in the process. If they were attacking police and government buildings then yes, you could refer to it as “protest”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        No, it isn’t but he police in Ferguson have been treating peaceful protesters as if they were looting and destroying property, which they weren’t.

  • formerlywhatithink
  • Ellen Kuhlmann

    Exactly. Think we’re a post-racial society? Think again.

  • View Minder

    Dude… them farm boys can shoot… you don’t hear about any ‘innocent bystanders’ gettin’ killed… ‘cept during hunting season… they got long guns with scopes and they know how to use them… the urban shooters are using pistols and they don’t seem to be very effective… though I get the jist of this story and I agree with it… the government wisely backed off from the conflict at the Bundy Ranch… no one got hurt… nothing was damaged or looted and you don’t hear too much about the whole thing today… smart moves… when the hood’s ablaze and stores are being looted in the night you can’t back away from the conflict… to me it sounds like the cops executed Michael Brown… I’ll reserve judgement until more details come out… although I gotta feeling that this was ‘shaven head asshole steroid cop’ stuff… I feel the rage and I think the police state has gone way too far all the way around… but burning and looting your own neighborhood doesn’t in one way remember Michael Brown or further his meaning or memory.

  • JacklynD

    The whole gun culture has turned our nation upside down. Also, who is selling these vehicles to police forces? Are these military surplus equipment being sold on a wholesale market instead of being warehoused or recycled?

  • Daniel Mulvihill

    Guess the race of the head of St. Louis County, whose SWAT team is aiming rifles at peaceful protesters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Dooley

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    A-Fucking-Men

  • Sabbie

    It comes down to this: tear gassed on their own private property. If it had been white folks, it would have been all over the media. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/12/ferguson_tear_gas_video_angry_but_apparently_unarmed_residents_face_attack.html

  • CL Nicholson

    Whether its militia crackpots protecting a tax dodger in the Las Vegas countryside or cops turning a small Midwest city into pre-ceasefire Gaza Strip, it can all be summed up as angry white people with guns – every Black man’s worse nightmare.

  • muselet

    I’ve mentioned before, my rinky-dink hometown has an APC and just took delivery of another, even larger, ex-military vehicle. The justification? SWAT needs big armored vehicles to deal with hostage situations. I wish I were joking.

    The underlying problem is the 1033 Program, which directs the DOD to transfer unused military equipment to police departments. It’s unnecessary, it’s inappropriate and it’s leading to police behavior like that seen in Ferguson (if all you have is a hammer …).

    –alopecia

    • CL Nicholson

      Agreed. But it could simply be that the Ferguson PD and cops in general trained to see Black people and Latinos like rabid zombie hordes and not actual people.

      I get what you’re saying, but I just think that this is a far deeper issue than the army giving their old guns to local cops.

      • muselet

        Attitude is definitely a problem, but it’s harder to behave like an occupying army without military hardware. Not impossible—see any reasonably complete history of the 1960s for counter-examples—just harder.

        –alopecia

        • CL Nicholson

          But cops have act as roaming goons squads in Black neighborhoods for decades. Cops were beating Black protesters long before 1033 Program was developed in the Bush I administration.

          • muselet

            You’re absolutely correct. That’s why I referenced the 1960s earlier (I could have gone back farther, of course).

            Cops have long had an problem with ordinary citizens regardless of skin tone (in the ’60s, I think it was, my dad asked a family friend, a sergeant in the local police department, what they called non-police, and without any hesitation the sergeant said, “Assholes.”), but having military hardware to play with seems to amplify that aggressive, “don’t cross me, I’m a badass” attitude.

            –alopecia

      • RedStateAlways

        Last night’s law enforcement (re)action was by the St Louis County LEOs, not Ferguson PD, I thnk. The Missouri governor just turned over LAw Enforcement management responsibility to the Highway Patrol.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          Yeah. They made this enormous mess and are now handing it over to a black man who’s probably supposed to be grateful for this opportunity.

          • Jonny Overcat

            Maybe get a little bit real? the local and county police created the mess and made it worse. The governor is doing the intelligent thing and taking the situation away from the problem police agencies and handing it over to the state police, who answer directly to him. Much the same, the DOJ in pretty short order announced an investigation. Do you REALLY need to make your angle that the state police captain in charge on the scene is black and someone thinks they’re doing him a favor? He’s also from Ferguson. Really, what fucking brilliant plan would YOU come up with?

      • RedStateAlways

        Last night’s law enforcement (re)action was by the St Louis County LEOs, not Ferguson PD, I thnk. The Missouri governor just turned over LAw Enforcement management responsibility to the Highway Patrol.

  • Saren Arterius

    To be fair, this is comparing federal law enforcement to state law enforcement in another state. That said, the important part is to pay attention to who was supporting whom and when. The people who supported Bundy (against the feds) are the people who support the Ferguson PD, implicitly or otherwise.

    • Stephen M Wanser

      False.

      • Saren Arterius

        ok

      • SuckitMJ2

        [CITATION NEEDED]

        • Stephen M Wanser

          I am your living citation. Here. I am an Iraq/Afghanistan combat veteran. I was against the encroachment of freedoms in Nevada, and I am against the encroachment of freedom in Missouri. NEWSFLASH: I AM AGAINST ENCROACHMENT OF FREEDOM. I risked my life, watched my buddies get blown up, had my truck subject to an IED attack, all in the name of defending freedom. I may not necessarily agree with why they are protesting, but I do not agree with summarily dismissing their freedoms. We still have the right to peaceably assemble, the right to free speech, the right to a free press and the right to due process. Arbitrarily suspending Americans freedoms due to the malicious misdeeds of a few is not right. Period. Cited enough?

        • Guest

          ??

    • formerlywhatithink
      • Saren Arterius

        I think you meant to reply to the post below mine.

        • formerlywhatithink

          You’re right.

    • SuckitMJ2

      Yeah, that’s way off. The people who supported Bundy did so primarily because of government overreach. Most I know who supported Bundy also support the fight against the police in Ferguson but abhor the violent actions towards those that had nothing to do with it.

  • Stephen M Wanser

    Main difference in pictures: Bundy ranch was private property. The police have more leeway in public.

  • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

    "Why do black people always protest by destroying goods?"—White people who literally named a political party after throwing tea in the ocean— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) August 12, 2014

    • handymanherb

      So we didn’t steal it and take it home or try to sell it on the corner did we ???

      • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

        No you did that with the Native Americans.

      • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

        No you did that with the Native Americans.

      • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

        No you did that with the Native Americans.

      • OUR12

        It was a tax dodge.

    • handymanherb

      So we didn’t steal it and take it home or try to sell it on the corner did we ???

    • BigFurHat

      It was about taxation without representation.
      I know “representin” is very important to the people of Ferguson, but paying taxes???
      Maybe not so much, huh?
      TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Would you respect the TEA party more if they were flipping your car and setting fire to your business?

      I really do not see the parallel you’re trying to make here by dragging the TEA party into this Ferguson protest.
      And it’s this forced logic that doesn’t quite add up that sane people look at and sort of laugh.

      • http://elizabethsheryl.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth Bartlett

        It is pretty easy to figure out. The Tea Party values the original “maverick” revolutionists who fought against England who was taxing them without representation. One of the ways that they demonstrated their unhappiness was by destroying a commodity, tea. So to get angry at destruction of property when you put people on a pedestal that did the exact same thing is ironic.

        In Ferguson the law enforcement is mostly white (http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/08/13/mo-racial-makeup-of-ferguson-police.html) and the black population feels underrepresented and that their interests and concerns are much less important than protecting the (white) cop. I don’t think anyone should be flipping cars or destroying property— I think it detracts from the point and undermines credibility but I can see the irony.

        • BigFurHat

          Yes, British America boarding a British ship loaded with tea and throwing it overboard as a revolt against taxation without representation is exactly the same as burning down and robbing private enterprises that have nothing at all to do with your grievance. (Rolls eyes once again at the left who probably knows better but has this incessant need to apologize and placate idiotic behavior by black people for a reason only known to them, which I suspect is sort of racist because you’re willing to lower the bar because you probably think they are less intelligent and probably a bit feral. I expect more and will not make lame excuses and draw idiotic parallels for this embarrassing display. And many blacks agree with me.)

          • http://elizabethsheryl.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth Bartlett

            I’m not lowering any bar, nor do I think black people are less intelligent or “feral” or whatever ridiculous assumptions you just made. Any movement has intellectuals and activists and then the people who join in and act emotionally and with anger/destruction. Like I said, I think it detracts and reduces credibility when this goes on. Obviously arson and looting are wrong, but so was throwing a bunch of tea into a harbor. It was to attract attention but that doesn’t stop it from being wrong. The manufacturers of the tea had nothing to do with how American colonists were taxed.

          • BigFurHat

            Yes you are lowering the bar. You just did it in your comment!!!!
            You’re are so lost in your elitist faux leftist-intelligentsia you don’t even know what you’re saying.
            You just said that movements have their intellectuals and then they have the “emotional” ones that lash out with anger/destruction.”
            How about for expediency sake we call them poo=flingers.

            Geeez, thank you for stepping on your own dick and in such a quick and public way.

          • Lisa M. Alter

            She’s a woman. So where’s her dick then?

          • BigFurHat

            You’re so pedestrian and close-minded.
            This 2014, of course a woman can have a dick.
            Geez.

          • Andy Serres

            This 2014, of course a woman can have a dick.

            Awesome!!! BigFur :)

          • http://elizabethsheryl.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth Bartlett

            That is not lowering the bar, it is saying there are people out there who are activists/want to create change and work the system and there are people who get angry and act emotionally. This happens in ALL movements, regardless of race.

          • BigFurHat

            “regardless of race.”

            Too bad we are talking about black riots, which you identified as the “emotional ones that lash out with anger/destruction” as opposed to yourself – the “intellectual.”
            Stop digging, whitebread,
            you’re done.

          • Aaron M. Litz

            Oppressed, marginalized people lash out in anger at whatever is closest to hand, because they are unable to get to the actual cause of their problems and their rage at the injustice of the situation gets the better of them.

            How shocking.

            The racial status or pigmentation of the people’s skin has nothing to do with it. It is a human reaction. Read about the Servile Wars in Roman history to see how they reacted. Or records of peasant uprisings throughout history.

          • BigFurHat

            So, can current day white people be marginalized and oppressed?

          • BigFurHat

            Yes, yes, the people of Ferguson are slaves and they are expected to act in a servile way.
            They are oppressed and marginalized at every turn.
            It’s IMPOSSIBLE, impossible I say, for a black person today to escape the plantation that they are on. IMPOSSIBLE.
            There are no opportunities, no safety nets, springboards or anyone that cares. No one.
            It’s tragic I tell ya.
            In fact, the president of the United States agrees with you.
            What we need are higher taxes, I’m sure, and more Aaron Litzes that will explain away rioting and looting by pointing to the behavior of actual slaves in 135 bc.

            Just stop it.

          • BigSweezer

            I don’t recall Black asking for a f$%(king safety net, only a ‘fair shake and opportunity. Glancing your posts, notably your bigoted ignorance prompts you to “throw a wrench into the machine” in the midst of attempt to make rational diatribe. It doesn’t go unnoticed like the reeking of sh#^ from a shoe after accidentally stepping into it. Henceforth, the fecal exudation of your banter.

          • BigFurHat

            That blacks vote 90% left yet in polling care little about 90% of the left’s platform- the environment, climate change, gay marriage, foreign policy, etc. – should clue you in that they are indeed asking for safety nets when they vote left.
            They are voting themselves money, peanuts, actually, when you consider that welfare has become generational and no one moves forward and obtains wealth over and above what the government provides. It’s the modern day plantation.

            To say there are no opportunities and that blacks don’t get a fair shake is a statement that flies in the face of reality.

            And what makes me a bigot? That I mention blacks when we are talking about blacks? I think that’s all it takes now for the left.
            Can a conversation take place where someone expresses their opinion that embracing left-wing solutions for the problem of inner city blacks is wrong without the left accusing you of bigotry?
            It’s becoming as predictable as it is farcical.

          • robertbwinn

            The plantation they are on is the Democratic Party. They are there by choice.

          • BigSweezer

            Same way angry, abused spouses smash dishes, just a microcosm of people en mass when oppressed.

          • Aaron M. Litz

            Exactly, thank you; wonderful example.

          • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

            http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party

            Most of that pretty much refutes you claims, but most salient to this conversation:

            9. The financial loss was significant.

            It’s estimated that the protestors tossed more than 92,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor. That’s enough to fill 18.5 million teabags. The present-day value of the destroyed tea has been estimated at around $1 million.

            So, you really think they managed to do that much damage in Fergeson?

      • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

        You know, I had this whole post planned out, going over the iconography of colonial America that was co-opted by the Tea Party and all. How the very Tea Party movement was based on a massive misinterpretation of history. All that stuff.

        But I reread your comment. I saw you are just a dumb-ass troll that thinks “representin” is a clever insult. So I’m not going to bother with that. I hope the invisible guest upvotes you got enjoyed that piece of not-at-all dated “humor”.

        • BigFurHat

          How about no representation without taxation? How about that movement taking hold?

  • Brennen Nase

    Answer: Police are bully’s and cowards. They were wrong in BOTH cases. The difference is the Bundy ranch standoff, the citizens were heavily armed. Score one for the 2nd amendment.

    • i_a_c

      Somehow I don’t think Ferguson citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights would have gone over terribly well.

    • AlCum

      How were the police wrong in the Bundy matter?

    • CL Nicholson

      Also, those were a) feds outside of Bundy and b) the Bundy Ranch were crazy white guys. If those Black people in Ferguson were carrying assault rifles – the cops would be in tanks right now.

  • Clusterpuck

    Courtesy of the Rude Pundit regarding that “rioting and looting”…
    “It’s a Family Tradition: The Looting, Rioting Founding Fathers

    “With respects to the Lieut. Governor’s House, where they ended their vile [transactions]…they had rais’d a greater Number and were intoxicated with Liquor, broke his Windows, threw all his furniture out of his House, stamp’d upon the Chairs, Mahogany Tables, very handsome Large gilt-framed Pictures, the Pieces of which lay in Piles in the Street, open’d his Beds and let all the Feathers out, took ten thousand pounds in Cash, took all his Cloathes, Linnen, Plate, and everything he had, cut the Balcony off the Top of his House, pulled down all the Fruit Trees in his Garden, and did him in all 25,000 pounds damage.”

    That passage is quoted in an online article titled “American Heroes: Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty.”

    - See more at: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/08/its-family-tradition-looting-rioting.html#sthash.nKVOm9ox.dpuf

    • Churchlady320

      In 1876 on the centennial of the Revolution, but in the middle of huge labor unrest nationally, the members of the MA Historical Society – wealthy white males all – published an article decrying the “mobs” that led the charge at Bunker Hill. They declared them to be unfit as people to honor since they ‘turned against established authority’ – the Brits.
      Because honoring the actions at Bunker Hill might give the 19th century labor strikers ideas (because they just KNEW that their arcane journal would fall into the wrong hands…) they derided those people we now consider to the heroes of the Revolution.
      And so it goes unto today – those with or wanting white privilege and wealth will always betray those who fight for democracy, even going so far as to pillory people we thought and think are national heroes.

      • David

        Crispus Attucks was also the first casualty of the American Revolution at the Boston Massacre.

  • Dan

    The behavior displayed by the Ferguson and local police departments towards those citizens was disgraceful and un-American. I think they ripped up every single amendment in the Bill of Rights. Feds need to come down HARD on them

  • Steven Skelton

    Well….should the cops stand back and let the looters burn down Ferguson, or should the feds have used tear gas at Bundy Ranch? Which one of those would make you feel better Bob?

    • i_a_c

      Right, the choice is between “letting looters burn down Ferguson” or this. SMH

      • Steven Skelton

        I’m a vocal libertarian, and the militarization of local law enforcement is a practice I abhor.

        But short of a riot level response, Ferguson would have burned in its entirety.

        A basic function of the state is to protect the property of the innocent. There really was no other choice. Perhaps we could quibble over degree, but a full riot response was certainly called for when a full riot was going on.

        • i_a_c

          Great. Disperse the looters and vandals, arrest them, and make it clear that it’s unacceptable. Now we’ve moved beyond that to spraying rubber bullets into crowds that aren’t doing anything, arresting media, etc.

          • Steven Skelton

            Not that it makes much a difference, but they fired pepper balls, not rubber bullets.

            The crowds weren’t doing nothing, they were throwing Molotov cocktails at the police.

            As far arresting media goes, the weren’t arrested for reporting. They were arrested for a complete other bullshit reason just like everyone else at that McDonalds. “Arresting Media” is only a problem if the state is moving to silence journalism.

            The hundreds of journalists reporting freely tells me that is not a problem right now. If they were arresting journalists for reporting, I would be right in the front yelling ‘bullshit!”

          • Sara H

            Actually, they did fire rubber bullets, and they also fired wooden baton rounds. The press has reported this, and shown pictures of the rounds after being fired, picked up and photographed and tweeted the pictures.
            http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/08/10_tweets_munitions_in_ferguson.html

          • That River Gal

            They have fired rubber bullets, and I’ve seen photos of the horrific injuries they have caused.

          • i_a_c

            The press has credentials and stuff, so it ought to be easy enough to figure out who is there doing reporting, not that anyone in uniform seems to care. Also there’s that tear gas fired at al-Jazeera reporters.

            The “crowds” were not throwing Molotov cocktails, a few individuals were. Too many completely innocent people are getting attacked, getting high-powered rifles pointed at them, or arrested. This is a police riot now–there’s no excuse for hurling Molotov cocktails but the excessive force shown has done its part to escalate matters.

        • baystater

          Libertarian?! LOL! A few punks were looting and causing trouble, not the entire group of protestors. I’ll bet you listen to Alex Jones and read InfoWars, don’t you? Go to Somalia since you nuts hate every policy that helps the less fortunate, the elderly, or students in this country.

        • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

          Except there wasn’t a full riot. From what has been described so far, there were only a few cases of looting and property damage. All acknowledged to be the work of a small group of people and not the entirety of the protesters. The most extreme the violence has gotten is one reported incident of rocks and glass begin thrown. So there is no evidence that Fergeson would have “burned” if they hadn’t mobilized the riot police.

          And even if there was a full riot, it doesn’t excuse a media blackout and arresting journalists. Not to mention that the main reason there even is a protest is the lack of communication and transparency between the residents of Fergeson and the police.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            One convenience store was burned down, but that wasn’t the work of peaceful protesters.

        • gocart mozart

          “I’m a vocal libertarian”

          This explains why you care a lot more about property rights then you do about human rights (especially black humans)

        • CL Nicholson

          There were a few scoundrels destroying property?
          Fine arrest them!! Don’t militarize the entire city.

          I guess like most libertarians, you only “abhor” the ‘militarization of law enforcement when it might be white hipsters in Silicon Valley and not Black blue collar people in the inner city.

        • D_C_Wilson

          So far, there has been no evidence that the looting was ever widespread enough to burn the whole city down. Nice strawman.

        • A. Cawthorne

          But short of a riot level response, Ferguson would have burned in its entirety.

          Hyperbolic nonsense absent of any actual thought.

    • Ashes Defacto

      Stupid straw man argument, obvious trolling bullshit. Down voted and flagged. Have a shitty day.

    • baystater

      The Feds should’ve arrested all the douche bags supporting (and including) the Million Dollar moocher in Nevada.

      • Churchlady320

        And set off a massive shoot out? That’s not wise.

        • A. Cawthorne

          And send the clear message that it’s OK to threaten law enforcement officers because if you do absolutely nothing will happen to you? That’s wise?

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          They had sufficient cause to get a warrant and could have picked them up at work or while otherwise out of their houses.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          They had sufficient cause to get a warrant and could have picked them up at work or while otherwise out of their houses.

    • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

      Should the federal government try to move the illegally-grazing cattle of an admitted and proud lawbreaker and tax cheat until he pays his fines, or should the police be allowed to operate with little transparency or communication to the public in regards to a suspicious shooting, and proceed to stifle freedom of the press while at it?

      Which would make YOU feel better?

      • Steven Skelton

        I know that this is unusual for a comment section, but I have to say that I have no idea what should have done at Bundy Ranch.

        • A. Cawthorne

          but I have to say that I have no idea what should have done at Bundy Ranch.

          Really?

          How about arrest those who were breaking the law? How hard a conclusion is that to come to?

        • http://usrimfireshooters.wordpress.com/ RimfireShooter

          Pull back, take the win in court from the laws and fees you got to write.

          Then do what is usually done when taxes are owed. Put a lean on the property.

    • Churchlady320

      Nope. But simple POLICE and FIRE work would have sufficed. Instead it’s military action against unarmed people only 32 of whom have been arrested for vandalism and arson at this point.

      The Bundy supporters were ARMED and drew a bead on federal law enforcement officials, a MAJOR big deal. NO one in Ferguson is armed. The feds acted with discretion and wisdom to prevent further harm. The Ferguson police are not.

      Easy to justify massive militarized over-reach when it’s not you in the cross hairs.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Maybe a taste of some tear gas would have shut Bundy up and we would have been spared learning what he “knows about the negrah.” Of course, the resulting bleating from the conservative entertainment complex about how the government was oppressing him would have overwhelmed and drowned out the fact that he was a deadbeat who didn’t want to pay money he legally owed.

      • Jonny Overcat

        The feds wisely opted out of what was a teabagger media orgy. He will pay. What’s truly ludicrous is looking at what he originally owed and what he’s made it balloon into.

  • jayking007

    How many convenient stores did Bundy burn down?

    • i_a_c

      Wow, yeah, that totally justifies firing tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets at people who had nothing to do with anything.

      • jayking007

        Hey I agree, the police are out of control, but part of the reason was the reaction to a mob burning the town down. That did not happen at the Bundy ranch.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          No, there was just a mob aiming their weapons at law enforcement personnel.

    • Bosma

      He broke laws and his followers aimed weapons at law enforcement when they came. Should ferguson citizens have pointed weapons at law enforcement when they came?

    • D_C_Wilson

      He was too busy threatening to start another civil war.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Well, one convenience store was burned down in Ferguson, and the black people who were exercising their First Amendment right to assemble and were protesting peacefully, had nothing to do with it.

      • jayking007

        Fine, you are now the mayor. A store was burned down, business owners are asking you for help. The people are asking for justice, but the investigation is not complete. What do you do? Wait for another building to get burned?

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Well, one convenience store was burned down in Ferguson, and the black people who were exercising their First Amendment right to assemble and were protesting peacefully, had nothing to do with it.

  • Ashes Defacto

    The Mulford Act which gave California the strictest gun laws in the Nation was drafted by and named for a Republican Assemblyman and signed by then governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. The whole point of the law was to disarm the Black Panthers. That should tell you everything you need to know.

  • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

    You know, that last picture highlights another massive and horrific difference between Bundy Ranch and Fergeson: At the Bundy Ranch, while the FEDS were being threatened and held at bay, the LOCAL law enforcement was standing right beside Bundy, a KNOWN AND ADMITTED BREAKER OF THE LAW, and were just smiling and having a ball. That is the goddamn COUNTY SHERIFF up there with him.

    Has there been any evidence, ANY AT ALL, of ANY member of Fergeson or Missouri law enforcement showing support or at least consideration for the protesters?

    • CL Nicholson

      Good point!!

    • NevadaBob

      You’re rewriting history. The Sheriff in no way supported Bundy.

      • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

        You know what? You are right. It was a FORMER sheriff that actually supported him and called for women and children to be put on the front lines so they would get shot first. This current sheriff did at least put up some resistance to the standoff (even though he was quick to put the blame on everyone but himself for letting it get out of hand). So, mea culpa.

        Still, that picture is telling.

        • CTOH

          Yeah – the ex-sheriff – brave guy will to sacrifice the wimmin and chillen for the cause – and the photo op.

          • Eric Nirschel

            As we all know, no woman is capable of making the decision to be there of her own accord. They were only there because the menfolk told them to be.

          • robertbwinn

            Oh, I understand now. That was why the BLM agent had to body slam the old woman to the ground.

      • Bim Jean

        Are there officers in the picture supporting Bundy?
        Would you mind explaining what difference it makes?

        • robertbwinn

          The difference it makes is that Bundy is still alive.

    • Tim

      That’s not an accurate representation of the local Sheriff. His trying to remain blameless after the fact notwithstanding, during the event he was trying to end things without anyone getting killed.

      • http://vermillionbrain.blogspot.com/ Vermillion

        Bundy and his supporters made it clear that the highest authority they recognize is the sheriff. He was certainly the only authority they allowed in their ranks. If that was the case, he had way more influence over this situation than he let on. He could have at least requested Bundy not encourage people to point guns at folks doing their jobs. There were really multiple ways a competent sheriff could have kept things from escalating. Instead he stepped out the way until the Feds decided to leave, and then went down to that stage to give them the good news.

    • robertbwinn

      I don’t think anyone in Missouri asked the Sheriff’s department for anything. Bundy holds on to the Sheriff for dear life. If he ever lets go, he is dead.

  • maccamcfc

    I don’t live in America (am English) but when I saw them pretend army dicks at the Bundy ranch were walking about armed to the teeth and pointing them at the police and the police did fuck all that was amazing to me.
    Now imagine if the black lads did that in Ferguson, I know there was looting but as some else said on here Bundy was doing the same thing taking something that wasn’t his, the hypocrisy is truly amazing to outsider looking in on your country.

    • 14truth

      To lots of us inside the US border, as well.

    • http://usrimfireshooters.wordpress.com/ RimfireShooter

      At least some of those pretend army dicks are veterans who have seen combat.

      That confrontation wouldn’t have been pretty.

      • maccamcfc

        They were in the army, now they are like one of them war renactment society’s but with real guns.

        • Joe

          Actually, Mac, our cops having been the ones playing army lately.

          No kidding. These clowns are driving our old MRAPs against unarmed protesters like their driving down MSR Tampa.

      • Tim

        Nope. Cops would have died, then the state police or guard would have dealt with those idiots. Frankly anyone who fetishizes veteran status doesn’t understand that even trained individuals don’t make an army by showing up. Those guys couldn’t even get along with each other. A few crazies, unskilled or antisocial, will foul any militia efforts to fight the government.

    • silhouete2

      Yep. In my home state of CA–we have gun control laws that were instituted in the 60s by Ronald Reagan when he was governor in response to the Black Panthers exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to carry guns in public. The underlying rules in the US are basically IOIYAW (it’s ok if you are white).

      • maccamcfc

        So if you are black its harder to get a legal gun than if you are white lad?

        • Jefte Roman

          They specifically ask if your hispanic!?

        • Tim

          Harder to not get shot carying it if you’re black. If the recent walmart air rifle death is any indication.

          • maccamcfc

            Fair point, it still staggers me that you can buy air rifles and real ones from a supermarket.

          • Chris Schoenen

            Air rifle is a bbgun number two walmart is not a supermarket.

          • maccamcfc

            I know a air rifle in America is called a bb gun and number two Walmart is considered a supermarket where I live.

          • Chris Schoenen

            In the U.S. a supermarket is also considered a grocery store for food items. Walmart sells just about everything you can imagine from Car parts, fishing equipment, sporting goods, toys, etc….. What do they sell at your walmart where you’re located? Was Just curious. Anyway a BB-gun is less harmful than purchasing a knife….about the worse it can do is shoot an eye out….which a knife and even a baseball or golfball could do….I’ve even herd “nerf guns” have taken out a person’s eye…..rare/unusual but has happened.

          • maccamcfc

            Our supermarkets sell food, alcohol, electronics, clothes , baby stuff, toys and cooking things.

          • Tanisha brooks

            I’m in ny and all our Walmart sell everything

          • Tanisha brooks

            Walmart can be considered a supermarket because it carries a full line of groceries

        • silhouete2

          Probably not–but you would probably have more issues with the cops if you are a black man open carrying or threatening the US govt. like they did at Bundy Ranch. There are two sets of rules–that’s the point.

        • Icha Icha Alanna

          I don’t know about California, since I live in Pennsylvania, but I don’t think it’s harder to get a gun if you’re black; the background checks are pretty systemic, so race isn’t a factor, and it would be illegal to discriminate. (There are some factors that stack against POC however, since criminal records are disproportionate, thanks to racial profiling and the “justice” system.)

          But the racism comes into play when a black man is legally exercising their rights. Having a concealed carry permit is asking for trouble from the police if you’re black and they pull you over, whether you have a gun on you at that point or not. States with “Stand Your Ground” laws, a white person will a concealed weapon finds out a black person has one (legally), they can likely get away with it.

          • maccamcfc

            Thanks mate, that explains it well, I can imagine the polices reaction to pulling over a black lad with a legal gun with all the paperwork compared to a white lad.

          • sydbarrett74

            Trayvon Martin wasn’t shot by a ‘cop’ — George Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman *wanted* to be a police officer, but kept getting turned down by various departments because he had a questionable personality profile.

          • Jeremiah Reagan

            Regarding the woman in Florida, she didn’t even shoot her husband. She fired a WARNING shot. Didn’t even shoot anybody, and she gets 20 years while Zimmerman gets away with murder.

          • notpilgrims2

            Zimmerman was shooting a self-defense situation. The two of them were involved in a fight.

          • Sensual A

            If you hunt somebody down and follow them and then get in a fight with them is it the right thing to shoot them because you start to lose that fight?

          • notpilgrims2

            If someone was hunting for you, then that would be murder. If that ever happens, tell me.

          • pyrodice

            The day a cop goes hunting for you, your dogma is gonna get run over by your karma.

          • notpilgrims2

            I don’t know why a cop would go hunting for me. They would certainly be crazy–and violating every law if they did.

            Tell me when was the last time a cop went hunting for someone? I read about a case in Ferguson where a cop shot someone, and that cop is being investigated for it. If the facts as expressed by the victim’s friend are correct, then it looks like it might have been a case of the wrongful use of force. Still, it wasn’t hunting, even as analyzed under the victim’s friend’s claims.

          • pyrodice

            It’s not that hard to come up with reasons. He saw someone in a certain type of car go by, he claims he saw something illegal happening, be it inside the car, or the behavior of the car itself… Maybe it was you, maybe it wasn’t, but then he sees you heading down a cluster of neighborhood streets, and thinks it’s the right car. He’s now hunting you. Be a damn shame if you tried to tell a COURTROOM he was stalking you, whether or not he’s in an unmarked car…

          • notpilgrims2

            The example you cited isn’t an example of a cop going hunting. It is an example of a cop pulling someone over on suspicion of a crime.

          • pyrodice

            And you think Zimmerman was doing a DIFFERENT type of following because… why?

          • notpilgrims2

            Apparently Zimmerman saw someone who looked suspicious, and he was a neighboorhood watch volunteer. He followed him non-violently. Following someone doesn’t justify someone fighting you. Later, when he was arrested, he complied with the officers demands and didn’t fight back.

          • pyrodice

            That’s pretty much exactly my point. If cops aren’t “going hunting”, neither was George Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was “going hunting”, so are cops. Gotta pick one, can’t have it both ways, badges and uniforms don’t grant extra rights.

          • notpilgrims2

            Exactly. Zimmerman wasn’t going hunting. He was non-violently following someone.

            Granted, he wasn’t a cop, so it is at least plausible that someone would think wtf. If you are a cop with a uniform, then all the more justified. Because then the person would know, “Oh, he’s a cop. He’s not some random guy. Let’s see what he wants.”

          • pyrodice

            I recently had to point out that the Ferguson cop was one step LESS justified than GZ in every aspect. These uniforms do NOT grant extra rights.
            -Zimmerman didn’t fire until he was UNDER his assailant.
            -Zimmerman wasn’t equipped with a Taser
            -Zimmerman didn’t fire REPEATEDLY into his alleged attacker
            -Neither party were aware of the ‘rap sheet’ of their counterpart until later, making it an “excuse”, not a reason.
            -Zimmerman’s injuries were documented on site by paramedics, and not cut from whole cloth and a publicly available image of an MRI with the university it was taken from erased off the document.

            All this together means one thing for me… I want people to STFU about Zimmerman unless they’re MORE willing to string up this cop, not less.

          • notpilgrims2

            (2/2) In that case the proper thing to do would be to pull over, since there is a cop telling you to pull over.

            The cop then looks at your drivers license, etc. Most likely he lets you go. If he considers you a suspect, he might arrest you. Later you would be released if there isn’t enough evidence against you. If there is, you would be charged. Then you stand trial, and your lawyer would defend you, and you would be convicted if the jury thought you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You would be released if they didn’t. Just like the Zimmerman case when Zimmerman was charged and went through the judicial process.

          • pyrodice

            No, you’re just hijacking a scenario to be your own now. There was no ‘telling you to pull over’.

            Although if you’d simply GOOGLED ‘hunted by cop’ things like this would have been obvious.

            http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/ny-cop-the-civilian-population-is-being-hunted-and-were-being-hated/

            Of course we *should* just do basically nothing to defend ourselves, because Kelly Thomas was lucky enough not to be a black guy, and as such, they didn’t shoot him dead in the middle of the street.
            They beat him to death.
            While he begged.
            and pleaded
            and apologized
            and called for his father.

            I don’t think I like the cops’ idea of a trial.

          • notpilgrims2

            “There was no ‘telling you to pull over’.”

            Your comment itself included the thing about getting pulled over. The cop suspected you of a crime. When cops see a suspect, they turn on their lights and tell them to pull over. Like in the recent Ferguson shooting, the cops told the person to get out of the middle of the street.

          • pyrodice

            I think you should reread my comment and do quote me if you see me mentioning pulling anyone over.

          • notpilgrims2

            The police always tell people to pull over when they want them to pull over. What are you referring to then?

          • pyrodice

            The police are almost universally instructed to get RIGHT (like, dangerously for any speed) behind someone before giving the first indication that they’re pulling them over. If the cop loses visual on you, for purposes of taking corners and such, no, you’re not being instructed to pull over, but you ARE being hunted.

          • notpilgrims2

            If you give chase, then you are simply engaging in a dangerous car chase. When you see the cop behind you and they turn on their lights, then you know they are pulling you over.

            Full disclosure: I have been pulled over for traffic violations before, and I could easily tell that the cop wanted me to pull over.

          • pyrodice

            You’re ignoring that people’s rear-view mirrors don’t show more than headlights most times, and that not all patrol cars are marked.

          • notpilgrims2

            1.) Most patrol cars are marked.
            2.) You can hear sirens, and see the cars behind you (including the top of the car). You have windows on the side of the car and the rear view window that shows directly behind you. Are you deaf? You mean you can’t hear the sirens, not to mention see the police car following you?

          • pyrodice

            What I see is that you keep trying to change a given scenario when it won’t mould to your expectations. When the police are looking for a vehicle that actually stands a chance of getting away, they WON’T use lights or sirens until they’re directly behind them.
            Most is not all, and that’s not even useful since unless the sun’s up, headlights make it impossible to see that the rest of the car has markings.

          • notpilgrims2

            “they WON’T use lights or sirens until they’re directly behind them.”

            Exactly. And then the vehicle will be able to see and hear them.

          • pyrodice

            Right, and UNTIL HE GETS BEHIND YOU, he’s still got to relocate you, who isn’t driving in a manner which is designed to make you easily tailable.

          • notpilgrims2

            So you can just pull over after he gets to you and turns the lights on.

          • pyrodice

            Tell me: Are you FEELING the amount of energy you’re using avoiding the point?

          • notpilgrims2

            I’m still confused as to what your point is. If a police officer in a marked car has sirens and lights on behind you, then its pretty easy to pull over. I don’t see where you have disputed that.

            It is certainly possible that some of the officers could have unmarked cars or something, but in the majority of the cases, it seems, they have marked cars.

          • pyrodice

            It’s a simple point, really, you’ve just spent 20 posts trying to CHANGE the scenario because it doesn’t sit well with you. Here it is again: You’re driving down a sidestreet and a cop goes by, thinks he sees you doing something, whether you are or not, like your taillights on the left side of the road… He backs up, turns around, and enters the neighborhood. He is NOT behind you, he is NOT running his lights or siren, and he does not immediately see you… He is HUNTING you, and you don’t know it, so why on earth you think you’d pull over right now is beyond me.

          • notpilgrims2

            Why the f**k would you be concerned if a cop was driving somewhere and you didn’t see him? You wouldn’t even have the capacity to be concerned.

            You wouldn’t see him until he got behind you. So, why wouldn’t you just pull over once you saw him turn the lights on? You never answered.

            (BTW, the reason the cop was looking for you in most cases is because you looked like you might fit the profile of a suspect. It could be that you didn’t actually commit the crime, in which case the cop would either release you, or you would have the chance to defend yourself in court. Or maybe you did commit the crime.)

            Now let’s say you stop your car and get out before the cop catches up to you. The police will continue investigating if they think there was a crime, and if the evidence points to you, they will eventually get an arrest warrant.

          • pyrodice

            ” You never answered.”

            Because it wasn’t fucking relevant!

            See, that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying, you keep trying to creep this scenario into some little game of your own to change the facts of it, and I’m guessing you’re getting mad that I’m not turning a blind eye and letting it happen.

            “the profile of a suspect”

            BS. Complete BS. They SAY that, but if you pocket your license and say “Tell me the name of the guy you think you’re looking for and I’ll show you my ID” they’re gonna have to come up with something, quickly. If they don’t have the guy’s name (not usually the case, as most crimes are committed by people known to the victims), they should at least be able to tell you the nature of the crime that ‘you’ are suspected of. Again, they’ll have to scramble, because they’re bullshitting you.

            “Now let’s say you stop your car and get out before the cop catches up to you. The police will continue investigating if they think there was a crime, and if the evidence points to you, they will eventually get an arrest warrant.”

            and in tl;dr, this means they’re hunting you, and you’re pretty sure they’re going to catch you. Thank you. Was that so hard?

          • notpilgrims2

            Wow, a whole lot of bs. I don’t know where to start.

            1.) You created a scenario where the cops are chasing you. If the cops are chasing you and they eventually catch up, then they will have their lights and sirens on so you can see them. If they don’t catch up, the question is moot, because you will not have an interaction with them.

            2.) You suggested that if you have an interaction with the cops, you should “pocket your license” and ask them who they are looking for. That would be obstructing them and grounds for arrest. They could just look at your license in the first place–if they know the name of the suspect–and see if you are the one. Why would they need to tell you the name or details first? If you committed robbery and the cops say, “We are looking for someone involved in a murder”, I guess you would be happy–”Yay, it’s not me!”??

            3.) Um… The reason cops need warrants is because our legal system has protections built in. It is somewhat good for reducing arbitrary abuses of power. So the cops really should arrest people if they have probably cause. It would be a tragedy if criminals weren’t arrested and were allowed to commit crimes with impunity because they aren’t allowed to be arrested.

          • pyrodice

            Stop it. Stop being stupid, or ignorant, or pretending to those ends, whichever.

            1) “You created a scenario where the cops are chasing you.”

            No, HUNTING. Chasing implies then know exactly where you are, and can head directly for you. Hunting implies more skill.

            2) “That would be obstructing them and grounds for arrest.” Bullshit. You’re not obstructing their jobs when THEY choose to come see you FISHING for a crime. That’s no more correct than you can be arrested for resisting arrest, without a crime to be arrested for.
            “Why would they need to tell you the name or details first?”

            Because if they have to go fishing, it’ll show. and if they have to invent a story, you can call them out on the lie, from official documents later. Once they’ve given me a name, there’s no takebacks. Seriously though? If you don’t know how this trick works, it’s like how bad a magic trick would be if you say “Think of a number between 1 and 10″ “Ok” “now, I’ve got it… Tell me your number?” “Ok, it’s 5.” “That’s exactly the number I was seeing in my mind! Incredible, huh?”

            If they’re not doing anything wrong, they’ve got nothing to hide. Remember that line?

            3) yeah, warrants sound good for reduction of arbitrary overreach. Do you know how that was supposed to work though? The judicial system was supposed to be RELUCTANT to issue them. The moment you have a blanket-approval system, you’ve circumvented the whole process. Didn’t you know what this country was founded on? The idea that it’s better to see a thousand criminals set free than one innocent man, wrongly condemned.

          • notpilgrims2

            “1) “You created a scenario where the cops are chasing you.”No, HUNTING.”

            Stop playing semantic games. You and I are referring to the same thing, but we you are just using a different word.

            If someone commits a crime–or is suspected of a crime–they SHOULD be arrested. Are you saying people should be allowed to commit crimes with impunity?

            The cops find a gun next to a dead body. They trace the gun and find it belongs to John P. Doe III. The next thing they are going to do is get an arrest warrant and try to ascertain Mr. Doe’s whereabouts.

            2.) There is pretty sure to be a law against resisting arrest or against not showing ID. From a common sense perspective–even without the law–just showing ID is easy and removes the problem.

            3.) “Once they’ve given me a name, there’s no takebacks.”

            You assume they have a name. If they are looking for someone who fits your description who was caught on tape robbing a store, they don’t know the name.

            Plus, even if they did have a name, and the name is yours, that could simply cause you to resist arrest, causing more problems. Once they have your ID, they can simply see whether or not you are the one they are looking for.

            4.) “If they’re not doing anything wrong, they’ve got nothing to hide.”

            Exactly. So why are you so scared of showing your ID? You’re not doing anything wrong, right?

            If you try to apply that to the police, it actually doesn’t always work, as I noted above:

            “Plus, even if they did have a name, and the name is yours, that could
            simply cause you to resist arrest, causing more problems. Once they have
            your ID, they can simply see whether or not you are the one they are
            looking for.”

            4.) “The idea that it’s better to see a thousand criminals set free than one innocent man, wrongly condemned.”

            There is some balance of people who will walk free in a just system, but clearly 1,000 is not the right balance. That would be a very violent society. There is also some balance of innocent people that should go to jail wrongly. (If you have a justice system that even incarcerates one person, you don’t have a 100.0000% chance of knowing they are guilty. For a justice system that actually works to reduce crime, the chances would certainly not be that high.)

          • pyrodice

            “Stop playing semantic games. You and I are referring to the same thing, but we you are just using a different word.”

            -Then stop trying so hard to change the word, if you don’t think there’s a difference. Clearly you don’t think they’re the same word, or you wouldn’t be objecting to mine, and trying to substitute yours. I’m not stupid.

            “If someone commits a crime–or is suspected of a crime–they SHOULD be arrested. Are you saying people should be allowed to commit crimes with impunity?”

            No, it’s pretty clear what I AM saying, I’ve said it 20 times so far. But if “someone” is suspected of a crime, that doesn’t mean *I* should be arrested.

            “The cops find a gun next to a dead body. They trace the gun and find it belongs to John P. Doe III. The next thing they are going to do is get an arrest warrant and try to ascertain Mr. Doe’s whereabouts.”

            And they should have no problem telling me they’re looking for a Mr. Doe. Look, if I hear who they’re looking for, I’m clearly too close to them to run away. What harm is there in them telling me who they’re looking for FIRST, and then I’ll show them my ID? I already explained to you why you don’t just tell them who you are and they get to go “oh yeah, you’re the guy.”

            2.) There is pretty sure to be a law against resisting arrest or against not showing ID. From a common sense perspective–even without the law–just showing ID is easy and removes the problem.

            As it turns out, there are MILLIONS of irrelevant laws, not just resisting arrest. But one that IS relevant is that you DO have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, especially one which violates your civil rights. You know those, right? You’ve got some of your own…
            showing ID *IS* easy. So is giving in to ALL sorts of power overreaches. Demanding your rights is what’s hard, but hey, that’s how you build character: you don’t always take the easy way out. Besides, how does it ‘remove the problem’? The PROBLEM is a bunch of cops exceeding their authority.

            3.) “Once they’ve given me a name, there’s no takebacks.”

            “You assume they have a name. If they are looking for someone who fits your description who was caught on tape robbing a store, they don’t know the name.”

            I don’t give a damn. If they don’t have a name, then what good would me showing my ID do? Useless request. Denied.

            “Plus, even if they did have a name, and the name is yours, that could simply cause you to resist arrest, causing more problems. Once they have your ID, they can simply see whether or not you are the one they are looking for.”

            If it was really me, which it isn’t, so this is irrelevant, wouldn’t I resist arrest whether or not I showed them my ID? My best chance to escape would be IMMEDIATELY upon the point of stoppage, not once they (inevitably: It’s procedure) surround me, cutting off the most likely escape routes.

            4.) “If they’re not doing anything wrong, they’ve got nothing to hide.”

            “Exactly. So why are you so scared of showing your ID? You’re not doing anything wrong, right?”

            How do I know THEY aren’t doing something wrong? I’m not going to let crooked cops ID me… Those guys will be stalking my family by the weekend! They work for US, not the other way around. That’s what ‘public servant’ means.

            “If you try to apply that to the police, it actually doesn’t always work, as I noted above:”

            That’s why you know they’re crooked!

            “Plus, even if they did have a name, and the name is yours, that could
            simply cause you to resist arrest, causing more problems. Once they have
            your ID, they can simply see whether or not you are the one they are
            looking for.”

            Asked and answered.

            4.) “The idea that it’s better to see a thousand criminals set free than one innocent man, wrongly condemned.”

            There is some balance of people who will walk free in a just system, but clearly 1,000 is not the right balance. That would be a very violent society. There is also some balance of innocent people that should go to jail wrongly. (If you have a justice system that even incarcerates one person, you don’t have a 100.0000% chance of knowing they are guilty. For a justice system that actually works to reduce crime, the chances would certainly not be that high.)

            Just because YOU’re more of a utilitarian than our founding fathers doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be. You think wider margins are fine, until the day you’re on the wrong side of one.

          • notpilgrims2

            “But if “someone” is suspected of a crime, that doesn’t mean *I* should be arrested.”

            I already addressed this point. Ideally, you should be arrested if you did commit the crime, but it’s impossible to know for certain who committed the crime. That’s why you are arrested if there is enough evidence that you committed the crime.

            I know you think you responded to my point, but you didn’t:
            “If someone commits a crime–or is suspected of a crime–they SHOULD be arrested. Are you saying people should be allowed to commit crimes with impunity?”

            Since you think that people should only be arrested if they did commit the crime–and not if the evidence points to them having committed the crime–then you would want no one (or at most almost no one) arrested, because there are no cases where we know for certain who committed the crime–especially before it goes to trial. (Perhaps the few cases would be mass shootings like Ft. Hood and Columbine.)

            “If it was really me, which it isn’t, so this is irrelevant, wouldn’t I resist arrest whether or not I showed them my ID? My best chance to escape would be IMMEDIATELY upon the point of stoppage, not once they (inevitably: It’s procedure) surround me, cutting off the most likely escape routes.”

            Only if you were an idiot (which you seem to be from some of your comments). It would probably be easier to get off at the trial rather than escaping. In the first place, you would likely be shot if you started running. In the second place, most people who do become fugitives get caught not long after.

          • pyrodice

            I’m done with you, I’m not even hitting ‘see more’. You’ve tried CONSTANTLY to move the goalposts, change definitions, change words, change entire hypothetical scenarios. You’re not willing to accept a world that you didn’t sculpt, yourself. It’s almost like you’re a liberal, dictating foreign policy before they ever get out of mom’s basement.

          • notpilgrims2

            If your comments are supposed to be referring to the Zimmerman-Martin incident, then let’s address that. If someone gets in a fight with you and is beating you to potentially bad injuries–throwing punches MMA style, according to witness testimony at a trial on the matter–then you would be in your right to defend yourself. If the other person started the fight, all the moreso. We don’t know who started the fight in this case, since there were no witnesses to the start of the fight. We do know that Zimmerman non-violently followed Martin. Someone following you doesn’t give you the moral justification to fight them. Only if someone physically threatens you–i.e. punches you or threatens to do so–then fighting back is morally justifiable.

          • Chris Schoenen

            Although gm was following TM had evaded but circled to start a fight…..he couldve proceeded to nis home which was a block away without attacking GM……..who might I add was not a cop and is part hispanic but only pointing that part out for the race baiters.

          • http://www.BR-549.com Junior Samples

            The problem has been the focus on irrelevant arguments – some of which are actually unsupported by the evidence.

            1. ‘George Zimmerman (GZ) racially profiled Trayvon Martin (TM)’ There is no evidence of this.

            2. ‘GZ disobeyed an order by the police’ * The civilian dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he did not give GZ an order and, in fact, he, like his fellow dispatchers, are trained not make comments that sound like commands. * Noffke also testified under cross that, as a result of his asking GZ which way TM was going, GZ could have reasonably interpreted this as being asked to follow Martin. * It is also not a crime in Florida to disregard a comment made by a civilian dispatcher.

            3. ‘GZ got out of his car’ Not a crime on public property and not negligent either.

            4. ‘GZ followed TM’ Again, anyone can follow anyone on a public street unless the followee has obtained a restraining order against the follower and even there, the RS only places time, place, and manner restrictions on the person enjoined.

            5. ‘GZ wasn’t really injured’ * Under Florida’s self-defense laws, one doesn’t have to be injured AT ALL to use deadly force * No one is required to refrain from defending himself while another is engaged in or attempting to commit a felony.

            6. ‘TM is dead through no fault of his own’ * If you believe that TM assaulted GZ, then he IS dead as a result of his own actions.

            7. ‘GZ could have left’ * Under Florida law, there is not a duty to withdraw rather than use deadly force * TM was straddling GZ so how the latter was supposed to leave the scene is unanswered.

            8. ‘GZ was armed and TM wasn’t’ * One’s fists can be considered weapons and can result in severe bodily harm or death. * GZ was legally carrying a weapon * There is no requirement under the law that the same weapon be used by the assailant * A homeowner can kill an intruder whether or not he has been threatened * Those that attack cannot feign surprise if they are met with superior firepower.

            9. ‘Stand Your Ground!’ * SYG is NOT at issue in this trial. * The defense is a classic self-defense case.

            10. ‘Black men NEVER get to use SYG!’ * Wrong http://tinyurl.com/nboht35

            11. ‘GZ is a man and TM was a boy!’ * As if ‘boys’ don’t commit murder, rape, and assault everyday in this country.

          • heyo

            The medical examiner had determined trayvon martin was stalked and shot. Case was thrown away and the medical examiner filed a lawsuit. http://thegrio.com/2013/09/16/zimmerman-trial-medical-examiner-prosecutors-police-threw-the-case/

          • http://www.BR-549.com Junior Samples

            You sound like a crazy 9/11 truther or birther, do you know that?

          • heyo

            And you sound like some nigga in denial, do you know that? Even lawyers /attorneys/prosecutors who paid attention to the case said it was thrown away. Stop denying evidence around you and open your eyes. I know, its hard, but there’s no shame in it. Do some research and educate yourself. there is also ample evidence that shows 9/11 could’ve been allowed to happen (kinda sorta like pearl harbor) or even a really sick twisted inside job by our own govt.

          • pyrodice

            Zimmerman ‘got away with’ self defense: the only thing he was guilty of was being stupid.

          • jesskazen

            prob also guilty of stalking and harassment

          • pyrodice

            Not in any legal sense of either term.

          • Tanisha brooks

            Umm yes he did stalk-followed trayvon against the direct order of the police and yes he did harass-continually confronting and questioning himthose are the definitions of the words

          • pyrodice

            None of that happened. None. Sorry.

          • Frank Kovach

            A cop didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin. A civilian with a concealed carry permit on neighborhood watch did.

          • Icha Icha Alanna

            Thank you for pointing that out. I wrote this before coffee, that bleak part of the morning when the feelings and the intent are there, but the words are wrong.

          • Guest

            Guy who shot Trayvon wasn’t a cop just a guy walking around his community pretending like he was in a cop movie.

          • Tanisha brooks

            And the black woman who fired into the air, she was also jailed

        • Ryan

          Looking at how concealed carry permits have been doled out here in Chicago, yes it is. Legally at least.

        • Ricotta

          Felons can’t legally own guns.

          • notpilgrims2

            That doesn’t apply to Maccamcfc’s question. He was asking if there were any prohibitions against blacks owning guns.

          • Ricotta

            I already answered that question.

        • https://www.facebook.com/JohnCLindsay John Lindsay

          Is that what her words conveyed?! No.
          If you’re White….you can parade around with a gun in the open…and nothing said or no actions taken against you….as with Cliven Bunndy and his supporters…and many, many more.

          • Chester St1

            In the State of Nevada it is legal, (Except in Clark County) to openly carry a firearm without any type of permit. Clark County requires permit. If you are white, black or green you have the right to “parade around with a gun in the open” unless you are in Clark County (Las Vegas)

          • pyrodice

            You’d think so, but some of us remember Waco. White folk don’t always get a pass, we just resist differently.

        • jesskazen

          its up to local PD if you get one or not, depends on how racist local PD is

      • handymanherb

        Don’t even try it, doesn’t work anymore

      • notpilgrims2

        The GOP opposes gun control. Reagan supported it in his time. Now the Democrats support it. I would think that if you support gun control, you should support Reagan for implementing gun control.

        • silhouete2

          Reagan only signed the Mulford Act–which prohibited open carry in public in CA–because the Black Panthers stood on the steps of the capitol in Sacramento open carrying. It was about making sure that the Panthers couldn’t’ have access to guns. because the Panthers were open carrying, following the police around and filming them when they stopped people and made arrests. They went to Sacramento with their guns to protest legislation they thought was racist. That’s the history of that. Reagan did sign gun control laws during his presidency–BUT what he signed in ’67 was directed at disarming the Panthers. I support people who pass legislation that is NOT racially motivated.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            I can support legislation a governor signed without giving the governor more credit than the state legislature and not approving of most else that governor did, as can most people who can tolerate the tiny bit of ambiguity that goes into that thought.

            I think most regular DB commentators can.

          • notpilgrims2

            “It was about making sure that the Panthers couldn’t’ have access to guns. ”

            It prevented anyone from having assault riffles and open carrying, whites included.

            Later, Democrats passed an assault riffles ban under Clinton and tried to pass one under Obama. Is this all about which party is in power? Assault riffles bans are only good when Democrats pass them?

        • sydbarrett74

          I assure you, Reagan would’ve had no problems with white ammosexuals parading their weapons in public. He just couldn’t sign a bill into law that targeted blacks — although I bet he would love to have done.

          • notpilgrims2

            Reagan would indeed have a problem with white ammosexuals carrying assault riffles. His law applied to blacks and whites equally, and he didn’t offer an exemption for whites.

            Later, Democrats passed an assault riffles ban under Clinton, and Democrats recently tried to pass a new assault riffles ban.

            Don’t try to pin this all on Reagan.

          • Felecia

            No exemption to whites …… whites do not need exemption lol please any excuse to make injustices ok

          • notpilgrims2

            There was no exemption in Reagan’s gun ban bill for whites. That is, whites couldn’t buy assault riffles under his bill.

      • Steve

        Exactly! The problem definitely is racial. BUT the other problem is that the citizens of Ferguson are unarmed.

        • silhouete2

          Understood. I was responding mostly to what maccamcfc was saying about the comparison to what is happening in Ferguson and what happened at Bundy Ranch. That is what started the thread.

        • notpilgrims2

          “the other problem is that the citizens of Ferguson are unarmed.”

          That sounds like a gun nut Cliven Bundy type comment. No, we shouldn’t support the Tea Party’s argument that people need to be armed to murder government agents (or “protest tyranny”, in the words of the Tea Party). That Bundy was able to get away with stealing land due to threatening violence isn’t in fact an argument for more “Second Amendment solutions”–rather it’s an argument for a change in gun laws and also a change in how we deal with these kind of situations. (The feds should have given him what he wanted rather than backing down.)

          • robertbwinn

            The feds should have left Cliven Bundy alone. Until 1993 he was peacefully raising cattle and paying grazing fees. Then the Clinton administration told all cattle ranchers in Clark County, Nevada, that they were being put out of business. Cliven just kept on raising cattle. All the other ranchers went out of business. Cliven cannot pay grazing fees. The BLM cancelled his grazing allotment.

    • Jefte Roman

      Grazing rights that have been there for over 100 years are not his? Brov you have it twisted. Imagin the feds comming up to you telling you there is an endangered ant so now you have to hop on the side walk with one foot, to avoid steping on ants, but! If you pay the feds a fee you can walk with both feet how long do you think it would take for you to accumulate a large debt if you told them to piss off.

      • maccamcfc

        I have no idea what you are talking about mate

      • handymanherb

        Don’t make em think m their heads will blow up lol

        • Jefte Roman

          I tryed to explain it as simple as posible because I didn’t think they would understand the cow boy grazing rigjts concept I think he’s under the impression that bundy was stealing land when in fact its the fed stealing it.

          • DavidHP1

            Totally wrong, the constitution says federal land is federal land and gives the government the right to charge grazing fees. Bundy and his supporters don’t understand how the U.S. government works or the U.S. constitution. Bundy and his family haven’t been grazing that land for 100 years either, that is a lie he told among many others.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            I heard that his family wasn’t there 100 years ago.

          • silhouete2

            Or —they simply don’t care.

          • Joe

            David, you’re totally wrong. You failed to recognized where the government gets it’s “rights”. Consent of the governed is foundation to western democracy. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (US Declaration of Independence…kind of a founding document). “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations). Without consent, government is illegitimate. The local people, in this area of Nevada, have the human right to disregard this federal nonsense. If the feds want the land they need to go occupied it. Washington DC is a long way from the Bundy’s. I seriously doubt these people are fairly represented by “their” government. We can go back and forth over what constitutes consent, but I believe humans have a right opt-out of this fiction that DC “owns” everything isn’t the magic line and you sound like the kind of person that enjoys pretending to control others, so I doubt it will produce anything. You can smile anyway. You just caused a libertarian to appeal to the authority of a UN declaration. I feel a bit dirty.

          • Lisa M. Alter

            The problem with your argument here is that it ignores a number of facts. First, you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of “consent of the governed”. It does not permit a person to simply ignore laws without consequence. Second, the Declaration of Independence does not list rights, inalienable or otherwise. As for the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is not enforceable. Not in the US, not anywhere. This is a basic principle of the UN; it is not a governing body. Third, I have never heard of the “human right” to disregard federal law. Where is it enumerated? Not in the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution. Further, if you regard federal law as “nonsense” then you have a gross misunderstanding of the US as a whole.

            As for what you personally believe regarding DC (as proxy for the US government) and ownership, who cares? Your belief does not a law make.

            You also failed to address the fact that Mr. Bundy made a number of statements that were not, strictly speaking, accurate. These are generally referred to as lies. His family did not own their ranch for 100 years. Please review a history of ownership here: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history.

          • Joe

            Lisa, thank you for the response to my comment. I’ll try to respond to your post in order.

            First, I disagree with your assertion that I do not understand “consent of the governed”. You are ignoring the fact that the theory is open to several interpretations. I am willing to recognize your preferred interpretation, as a common one. However, to suggest that this has not been challenged and debated by philosophers, hundreds of years is uninformed or disingenuous. Also, you’re responding as though I’m making a legal argument, based on current law. I am not. I definitely, never said there were not consequences for exercising natural rights. Straw man much?. The American civil rights movement is a perfect example of rights being ignored. People were made to endure much suffering and toil in order to have their rights recognized. However, the movement did not ‘create’ all of those rights. Human rights can be divided into two categories natural and legal. Natural rights transcend government; they are “inalienable”.

            Second, I never suggested that the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration of Human Rights were “enforceable documents”. Your building straw men again. Nevermind that the assertions laid out in Declaration of Independence were indeed enforced/implemented/applied by the Colonial Army. You should really define your terms, it would make easier to avoid talking past one another. Both the Declaration of Independence and the UN passage are based on natural rights.

            This brings me to your third point. “The ‘human right’ to disregard federal law” is derived from the Natural Right’s theory. If you need a better understanding, checkout John Locke, the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence, and “The Rights of Man” (Thomas Paine). It’s this set of ideas that were used to challenge the divine right of kings, during the Enlightenment.

            “Further, if you regard federal law as ‘nonsense’ then you have a gross misunderstanding of the US as a whole.” Oh.. okay. Well then… pardon me. My misunderstanding is “gross”. You didn’t care to elaborate, huh? If I don’t agree with you, I must be incompetent. That’s a really dangerous way to think.

            “As for what you personally believe regarding DC (as proxy for the US
            government) and ownership, who cares? Your belief does not a law make.” This is an internet comment section, I’m not passing laws. Where do you get you material? 1) I understand this is an attempt to discount my opinion without providing any substantial argument. 2) You took the time to respond, so you know exactly who cares enough to engage me on my beliefs 3) Rather than being dismissive, let me ask you, why do you care?

            “You also failed to address the fact that Mr. Bundy made a number of
            statements that were not, strictly speaking, accurate.” “Fail” is a strong word. You did provided a decent link. I never set out to defend Bundy’s integrity. That’s his own responsibility. I can acknowledge the guy has made some shaky statements. However, I didn’t base my arguments on any of his statements.

            Aaron Hawkins put together a short video detailing his take on natural human rights, obviously with the help of 300 years of western philosophy. If you are genuinely interested, you might check it out.

            http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-declaration-of-natural-rights

          • BigSweezer

            The most intensive, informed and intelligent reply I’ve ever seen posted. Excellent conveyance of literacy , Joe.

          • Lisa M. Alter

            I also thank you for your response. I will address your points in order.

            It is quite true that there are many interpretations concerning the meaning of “consent of the governed.” I also admit my assumption that people are making legal arguments (as opposed to philosophical or otherwise) because I am a lawyer and that is how I was trained. Now you have the straw man, as I never said or implied that multiple interpretation was not possible. I note that when an idea has been debated over time and a majority accept a given interpretation (one that can and does change over time), that interpretation will hold sway. It can be challenged, true. It would seem to be the intellectual version of the majority rule. You are quite correct; I did read in to your statement. You did not mention a lack of consequences. Thus it follows that if Mr. Bundy chooses to ignore the law, he should be prepared to accept some consequence. His reaction (an armed confrontation) seems to indicate he did not expect a consequence.

            As for your second point, no, you did not state that the Declaration of Independence or of Human Rights were enforceable. Such was implied by your argument. Perhaps if you had initially defined your terms I would not have misunderstood. The onus is on both parties here, not just me as a respondent.

            Your third point is, I think, part of the problem of comparing philosophical argument with legal argument. We are indeed talking past one another, as I am speaking legally and you are referencing philosophy. While the ideas were (and still may be) used to challenge sovereigns, they are not legal arguments. Thus, while Mr. Bundy may justify his actions philosophically, his justification is not valid in a court of law where he would ultimately be tried.

            I will elaborate on the point of federal law. Please bear in mind that this is a legal argument.
            1. The Bundy Ranch is located near Bunkerville, Nevada in Clark County. A judge would take judicial notice of this fact.
            2. Nevada is a state and a part of the United States of America. A judge would also take judicial notice of this fact.
            3. Article VI of the Constitution states, in relevant part, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
            in Pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of
            the Land;… any
            Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
            notwithstanding.”
            4. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, in relevant part, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
            and Excises, …

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
            Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
            Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
            Department or Officer thereof.”
            5. “Federal grazing districts were established with passage by Congress of
            the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Las Vegas area grazing district was
            established Nov. 3, 1936.” See http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

            The above argument is why I believe there are no rational arguments by Mr. Bundy concerning federal taxation payments. His ranch is part of the US where the Constitution reigns supreme. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax (and spend) and the power to enact further law to carry out that mission. Congress did so. Mr. Bundy doesn’t like it. Too bad. That is part of citizenship.

            Your next paragraph discusses your personal belief. We are all entitled to them. However, I do not treat every belief equally. I listen and weigh according to my perceived intellectual and professional merits of the speaker. You have some understanding of the philosophy and many of the points are highly relevant. Pragmatically, however, philosophical arguments are legal losers. Please also consider the number of typos or homonyms in your post. One of my former bosses (a judge) noted that when someone makes such simple errors, errors of reason were more probable.

            In summary, I suspect we were talking past one another because you were speaking philosophically and I was speaking legally. Two valid approaches. Different meanings for same words.

          • robertbwinn

            Nevada is open range. If the federal government does not want cattle somewhere, they have to fence them off the same as anyone else.

          • Mary Martin

            Robert: Why is it that the other rancher’s manage to pay their bills, and Bundy the greedy Welfare King can’t abide by the same rules???? He’s a grown-up and he’s been breaking the law for years and he gets a pass. Way fair. It’s o.k. He’s White and a racist. He’s surrounded by fanatics who are willing to risk women and children in the name of his greed.

          • robertbwinn

            The reason why Cliven Bundy cannot pay grazing fees is because the Clinton administration went into Clark County , Nevada, shortly after Clinton was elected and said, all ranchers in Clark County are going to be put out of business so Clark County can be a habitat for the desert tortoise. Cliven Bundy has no grazing allotment. It was cancelled by the Clinton administration. All other ranchers in Clark County went out of business. Cliven is the last one left. He tried to pay grazing fees to the county. He tried to pay grazing fees to the state. The BLM tells him nothing except that he cannot have cattle. So he cannot pay grazing fees. The Obama administration is lying when they say that he can. There is no provision for Cliven Bundy to pay grazing fees.

          • Lisa M. Alter

            The federal government is not like anyone else. As for the 3 million spent to take 1 million, I disagree with the federal policy. They should have given three years warning then sued. With judgment in hand they would then simply seize Bundy’s cattle grazing on federal land and sell it. If that was inadequate to cover the debt, they would then proceed against any remaining property.

          • robertbwinn

            The only property Bundy has are some cattle. The 160 acres are in a family trust.

          • tecumseh

            the will of the “people” does not translate to “every person can do whatever he wants and ignore the law”

            the will of the people under the US Constitution is expressed through duly elected representatives in congress. This land has been federal land since the moment mexico signed it over to the US in 1848. Bundy has no legal or moral claim to it. He’s a moocher, the end.

          • Ajc1973

            And there will be those that say brown was a thug end of story… but you and them are missing the point because you cant let go of what your political parties tell you.

            The point is neither are reasons to roll up in tanks and take rights of the people away

            Eventually hopefully Americans will see the hypocrisy of the two parties and be able to look past the political differences and support each others rights.

          • Joe

            Well said, Ajc. Unfortunately, most Americans are brand loyalists who vote based on a color scheme.

          • Ajc1973

            its like yankee fans and boston fans, republican fans and democrat fans… no matter what their team says its the right thing… and if they trade players occasionally well its meant to be…

            parties are the death Knell of republics Its only a matter of time for this one

          • robertbwinn

            Well, independent voters will outnumber party members by the 2016 election. The problem independent voters have is that the two major parties can prevent them from being candidates for office. The problem the two major parties have is that their best efforts to stop independent voter registration always end up increasing the number of independent voters. Independent voters will win this contest.

          • Ajc1973

            True. I assume when you say independent you include libertarian green etc?

            If more states changed to open primaries we would have better odds of affecting change.

            I never understood it until this year when after mccain pissed me off so bad. I finally became a libertarian. Because I could no longer be associated with the republican party. My primary sheet had 2 names on it I could write in an additional 2 for 9 offices…

            Ppl do not understand the primaries are setup to perpetuate the two party system. Not provide the electorate with quality candidates.

          • robertbwinn

            Uh huh, so when are you going back to get the cattle? The BLM spent about three million dollars trying to get about a million dollars worth of cattle the first time.

          • Ajc1973

            Really? Where in the Constitution? What article specifically?

          • robertbwinn

            Bundy is right. The land should be state land. It was unconstitutional to require western states to give up all of their land. The original thirteen states got to keep all of their land.

        • Jefte Roman

          I tryed to explain it as simple as posible because I didn’t think they would understand the cow boy grazing rigjts concept I think he’s under the impression that bundy was stealing land when in fact its the fed stealing it.

        • Jefte Roman

          I tryed to explain it as simple as posible because I didn’t think they would understand the cow boy grazing rigjts concept I think he’s under the impression that bundy was stealing land when in fact its the fed stealing it.

      • handymanherb

        Don’t make em think m their heads will blow up lol

      • Tim

        You clearly don’t understand either of the lawsuits that Bundy lost.

      • tecumseh

        what grazing rights? It’s public land. He had the right to PAY to graze, but he did not PAY. It’s FEDERAL LAND. Has been since it was stolen from mexico, who stole it from the native nations.

        read a book please

        • Eric Nirschel

          Fun fact: He tried to pay. They didn’t take it. They also didn’t maintain the land, and tried to force him off it for years.

          What, you thought the other 50 farmers who suddenly disappeared from the area just decided they didn’t want to make money any more?

          • notpilgrims2

            He hasn’t paid for 20 years. He admitted to not paying. That’s not in dispute. He’s not paying because he’s an idiot who thinks he has full rights to the land and thinks the US government doesn’t have legal sovereignty over it’s own states.

        • robertbwinn

          He couldn’t pay to graze. The Clinton administration cancelled his grazing allotment in 1993.

          • notpilgrims2

            After he stopped paying.

            And then he never complied with Clinton’s decision or the court’s decision.

          • robertbwinn

            He stopped paying when the Clinton administration told him all cattle ranchers were being put out of business in Clark County.

          • notpilgrims2

            At one point there may or may not have some of the land being restricted due to an undocumented endangered species animal illegally immigrating there. The reason would have been to protect the animal–in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

            The farming was restricted but not ban. That was completely in compliance with the law.

            Not paying wasn’t in compliance with the law.

          • robertbwinn

            Well, I am going to have to put it in terms that a Democratic Party member might understand. Killing 60,000,000 Americans by abnortion was not in compliance with the law either. So what do you want to do, have a Civil War?

          • notpilgrims2

            “Killing 60,000,000 Americans by abnortion was not in compliance with the law either. ”

            Um…
            You clearly have never heard of Roe v. Wade, a court case that happened a long time ago. “Abnortion” is legal.

          • robertbwinn

            I have also heard of Marbury v. Madison, the court case that the Democratic Party used to impose slavery on the United States for the next sixty years. Court opinions are not laws. They are opinions of people who were stupid enough to become judges.

          • notpilgrims2

            Marbury v. Madison is the court case that protects our rights, such as the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment. If you actually heard of it, you would know that it gives the courts the power to make rulings on whether laws are constitutional or not. So if DC bans handguns, the courts rule it’s unconstitutional. In your twisted mind, you think politicians should be able to make unconstitutional laws without recourse from court oversight.

          • robertbwinn

            Well, no, Marbury v. Madison was the Supreme Court case where the Republican-Democrat Party took control of the federal court system and declared the Supreme Court to be the legislative body of the United States. Then they used that control to impose slavery on the United States for the next sixty years. Then it was turned around for a short time when Lincoln re-asserted the supremacy of the Executive branch by writing the Emancipation Proclamation and Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery in the United States. So since you are such a fan of the Supreme Court, how are your slaves today? The last Supreme Court decision concerning slavery was the Dred Scott decision.

          • notpilgrims2

            Exactly. It was the court case that let the courts defend our rights. Without it, gun rights and free speech and abortion and other rights could be illegal. Luckily courts told the politics to **** off on a number of occassions when they tried to violate our rights. If the courts didn’t have power, we would be punished for making “radical or reactionary speeches” (Yates v. US), we wouldn’t be allowed to operate advocacy groups in the state of Alabama (NAAPC v. Alabama), we wouldn’t be allowed to peacefully protest (Cox v. Louisiana), gays (and straights, for that matter) could be punished for partaking in gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas), and the publication of articles in the press could be restrained (Near v. Minnesota). Instead the courts protected our rights.

          • robertbwinn

            It was the court case which the Republican-Democrat Party claimed gave the Supreme Court power to strike down acts of Congress. That was not a new idea, and it did not come from Marbury v. Madison 1803. It started with the Stuart kings of England, James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II, four English kings who did not like Parliament and encouraged English courts to overturn acts of Parliament. William and Mary stopped the practice when they deposed James II, enabling England to abolish slavery in England with a vote of Parliament in 1834. Congress could not abolish slavery in the United States because the Supreme court was legislating slavery from the bench and would have declared any act of Congress to abolish or limit slavery unConstitutional. Court opinions apply to the case before the court. No court in the United States has authority to legislate, however popular it may be with party members.

          • notpilgrims2

            Just a little correction about your view on slavery. You said: ” Congress could not abolish slavery in the United States”

            Actually, Congress didn’t vote to abolish slavery until after the Civil War because the Union Won. They didn’t abolish slavery earlier because of Southern opposition in Congress. Finally, when they did pass an amendment banning slavery, slavery was banned, and if a state tried to pass a law legalizing slavery in their state, it would be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court would strike down the law.

          • robertbwinn

            Madison v. Marbury concerned the Congress of the United States. The Supreme Court claimed the power to strike down acts of Congress, which the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court. The Supreme court is not a legislative body. But by claiming to be a legislative body more powerful than Congress, the Supreme Court took away the power of Congress to legislate abolition of slavery. England abolished slavery in 1834. The United States should have done the same thing long before 1834, but there was no way to do it because the Democratic Party controlled the federal court system, and Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren had organized the Democratic Party for the express purpose of protecting the institution of slavery. The Confederate army attacked Ft. Sumter because the Confederates were going to protect slavery. So the United States government has worked the way it was intended exactly twice since the Republican=Democrat Party took over the government in 1800. That was when Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and when Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment. All the rest has been pro-slavery, just as Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren said it was going to be.

          • notpilgrims2

            1.) The Court doesn’t claim to be a legislative body. It claims to be a judicial body. It is the body that has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws. If it did not have that power, then We The People (TM) would have little recourse against unconstitutional laws, rendering the Constitution meaningless.

            2.) You say that America should have made slavery illegal through the courts system (“but there was no way to do it because the Democratic Party controlled the federal court system”), but the Supreme Court doesn’t exist to write laws. It exists to interpret laws. So if the law of the land (and the Constitution) allows for slavery, then they couldn’t just abolish it judicially. It seems that you are at this point arguing for the Court to make laws on its own.

            Slavery could have been outlawed by an act of Congress. But Congress didn’t do so because of Southern opposition. Finally Congress passed a Constitutional amendment banning slavery after the Civil War. Thus passed, slavery was constitutionally illegal.

          • robertbwinn

            There is no doubt why England was able to abolish slavery with a vote of Parliament, while Congress could do nothing. Every ruling of the Supreme Court from 1803 until the Civil War was in favor of slavery. If Congress had passed a bill abolishing slavery, the Supreme Court would have declared it unConstitutional. In England, William and Mary had stopped all interference with Parliament by English courts. An act of Parliament had meaning. When signed by the King, it was law. So an act of Parliament did away with slavery in the British empire. After Marbury v. Madison, an act of Congress meant nothing. Unless approved by the Supreme Court, nine feeble minded lawyers who are appointed for life, an act of Congress is not worth the paper it is written on. So Congress became a place for party politicians to divide up public revenues among themselves.
            Any court in the United States is free to rule whatever way it decides. Any court in the United States can say a law is unconstitutional. That decision really only applies to the case before that court, not to everyone the way court decisions are applied today. There was no one in the United States before the Civil War who could not tell slavery was wrong, just as there are no people today who cannot tell the injustice of these courts today is wrong.

          • notpilgrims2

            Congress couldn’t do anything because the Southern states supported slavery. Congress in fact didn’t to get rid of slavery until after the civil war. And after Congress voted to get rid of slavery, the Supreme Court didn’t overturn it. If the Southern reps and the pro-slavery reps didn’t oppose ending slavery, Congress could have passed that amendment much sooner.

          • robertbwinn

            Congress could not do anything after 1803 because they were no longer the legislative body of the United States. The Supreme Court was. The Supreme Court did not need to vote to overturn slavery. Their last decision on slavery remains the Dred Scott decision. So you pro-slavery people understand that if you have slaves in other states, you can still control them.
            Now here is the heart of the matter. You are just as capable of telling that slavery is wrong as the southern plantation owners were before the Civil War. John Wilkes Booth knew slavery was wrong even as he pulled the trigger of the gun that killed Lincoln. Knowing slavery is wrong does not keep people from trying to impose it if they are political party members, and their political party was started in the first place to protect slavery. They are going to pretend that they do not know how to do anything else.

          • notpilgrims2

            Actually, Congress passes laws. Read the Constitution. Who passed Obamacare? Pelosi’s House and Reid’s Senate, then Obama signed it. Scalia didn’t vote on it.

            Also: Congress passed an amendment to ban slavery after the civil war ended. They could have passed that amendment earlier, but the Southern pro-slavery senators opposed it. After the amendment passed, the Court never overturned it.

          • robertbwinn

            Nothing that comes out of Congress has any meaning until it is approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court passed Obamacare. John Roberts proclaimed it to be a tax after Obama and Congress said it was not a tax, which was rather strange, since the Constitution of the United States gives no powers of taxation to the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court seems to want that power now. The Thirteenth Amendment was approved by Congress while Lincoln was President, before the end of the Civil War. It did not go into effect until two thirds of the states had approved it, which did not happen until after the Civil War. To you people who hold the Supreme Court to be the source of all law, the Supreme Court does not need to overturn the Thirteenth Amendment. You already have the Dred Scott decision, which says slavery is legal in the United States. There has been no Supreme Court decision about slavery after that one. So it is just a matter of you deciding which Americans will be slaves.

          • notpilgrims2

            “Nothing that comes out of Congress has any meaning until it is approved by the Supreme Court.”
            Almost everything that comes out of Congress doesn’t even reach the Supreme Court.

            Like the ban on slavery. Which Congress should have passed sooner but was opposed by Southern pro-slavists.

          • robertbwinn

            So almost everytthing that comes out of Congress has no meaning under current interpretation because it has not been approved by the Supreme Court.
            Martin van Buren was not a Southern pro-slavist. He was from New York and was a descendant of Dutch colonists who never had slaves. But he helped Andrew Jackson re-organize Thomas Jefferson’s Republican-Democrat Party into the modern Democratic Party, a pro-slavery party. He was the prototype of the modern Democrat, a person who would promote any form of evil as a means of gaining political power.

          • notpilgrims2

            Um… No… Congress writes the laws, not the Courts. You really need a civics lesson to understand the Constitution…

            Additionally, you seem to oppose the Second Amendment. After all, it would be perfectly fine with you if Congress passed an unconstitutional law that banned guns.

          • robertbwinn

            The Supreme Court dictates what members of Congress will write. For instance, from 1803 until 1860 Congress could write nothing about abolition of slavery because the Supreme Court had proclaimed that slavery was protected by the Constitution of the United States. Today Congress can write nothing about freedom, liberty, or independence because the Supreme Court has declared that those things are unConstitutional. Then you have one Supreme Court judge saying that the United States Constitution is not a real Constitution like the Constitution of South Africa. So it is not really that difficult to tell which direction the Supreme Court wants to take this country.

          • notpilgrims2

            The Supreme Court never overturned the amendment banning slavery. Congress could have passed it whenever they wanted to, but they didn’t because of Southern opposition.

            Additionally, Congress can pass whatever they want, and, as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution, it can be enforced. You seemingly don’t care about the Constitution. You would rather have Congress abuse our rights by banning guns and banning speech and doing other anti-freedom unconstitutional things.

          • notpilgrims2

            For example, Congress passed bills to lower taxes and stifled bills to ban guns.

          • robertbwinn

            I would point out to you that everything written by courts is now promoted as law by the Democratic Party, whereas, Congress no longer passes legislation. All they do is vote to borrow more money on public credit.

          • notpilgrims2

            1.) Congress does pass legislation. Are you unaware of Obamacare, Medicaid Part D, the Stimulus Package, and all manner of other bills? You mentioned they vote for spending. Spending, of course, is also legislation.

            2.) What the courts decide is legally binding. That’s why we have courts.

          • robertbwinn

            Sounds like you Democratic Party members have things just the way you like them.
            Well, here is the problem that exists for independent voters. Political party controlled federal judges rule consistently that independent voters do not have rights as American citizens, only whatever rights political parties say they have.

          • notpilgrims2

            Citizens have rights. You clearly never read the Constitution. Of course, that’s par for the course for you, someone who thinks Congress can violate the Constitution at its will without the courts overturning unconstitutional laws.

          • robertbwinn

            Congress does not prevent independent voters from being candidates for public office. That is done by federal courts. They rule consistently that the states can prevent independent voters from running for office by requiring as many as seven times as many nomination petition signatures to get on the ballot for an independent voter than is required for a Democrat or Republican running for the same office. We are not in doubt about where the problem is. It is in the party controlled federal courts, just the same as it was when federal courts were ruling that slavery was Constitutional.

          • notpilgrims2

            You moron. You just admitted that the legislature–not the courts–are the ones that “prevent independent candidates from running for office.”

            Here’s what you said: ” They rule consistently that the states can prevent independent voters
            from running for office by requiring as many as seven times as many
            nomination petition signatures to get on the ballot for an independent
            voter than is required for a Democrat or Republican running for the same
            office.”

            Read it again: “states can prevent independent voters
            from running for office by requiring as many as seven times as many
            nomination petition signatures to get on the ballot”

            That’s not the courts that pass laws requiring signatures for the ballot. That’s state legislatures that pass election laws. If you hate those election laws, blame it on the people who passed them: the legislatures.

          • robertbwinn

            The legislatures are composed of party politicians. What good would it do to blame them for anything?
            They are completely honest about what they are going to do before they ever get into office. They are going to put money in their own pockets and in the pockets of the people who put them in office. Did independent voters put them into office?
            No, I don’t think so. They represent the highest ideals and ambitions of people like you, party members who idolize party politicians.
            Now your claim was that the people have recourse to justice if a state legislature makes an error.
            Well, I have taken this to federal court myself. Federal court says that a signature requirement seven times greater for an independent candidate than for a Democrat or Republican running for the same office is totally Constitutional. So what do party members like you say about it?
            It is law, just like abortion, homosexual marriage, and the other things you run from European police state governments through federal courts in the United States. The legislature is totally unnecessary to impose this form of slavery, just as it was totally unnecessary to impose chattel slavery in the 1800′s. All you have to have are party controlled federal courts to dictate European police state policies in the United States.

          • notpilgrims2

            The voters did put them in office, since the legislators in America are selected by elections.

            Now you blame the courts for the legislators passing a law. The legislators passed it. Not the courts. If you are mad about the law, blame the legislators. The courts aren’t the ones that made the law.

          • robertbwinn

            What you need to understand is that legislatures represent the people in our form of government. So what kind of people do we have in this country? They are people who want to get money from the state. So that is what their legislators do. They borrow a trillion and a half dollars every year on public credit and divide it up among themselves and give some to the people who were instrumental in getting them elected. Other than that, they do essentially nothing because any legislation they pass is meaningless until ruled on by a court. Then it becomes permanent and unchangable unless made unpopular among the people so that a judge might rule some other way.
            So the only way to change law is to petition through the court system. We have already done that. Federal courts told us that independent voters are slaves of political parties who have no right to vote in elections they pay for or to be candidates for office. That is the way it will remain for a while because the majority of people are still political party members.
            But political parties are becoming unpopular. By 2016 there will be more independent voters than political party members. So a change is coming in American government. It will not happen very fast and will not happen at all until there are more independent voters than political party members.

          • notpilgrims2

            The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. You are quite stupid. Anyone can read the Thirteenth Amendment online.

          • robertbwinn

            The Thirteenth Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution, a meaningless document to you pro-slavery people. Since you claim to be saying that the Thirteenth Amendment has meaning to members of your political party, what does the Sixth Amendment mean?
            If one Amendment has no meaning, then none of the rest do either.

          • notpilgrims2

            The Thirteenth Amendment effectively banned slavery, and since then, there has been no slavery.

          • robertbwinn

            Well, other than independent voters, who are declared to be slaves of political parties. They are not allowed to vote in elections they pay for or to be candidates for public office. So why was it that you did not want to discuss the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

          • notpilgrims2

            Everyone can vote in elections. Elections do, as you pointed out, favor the Republicans and Democrats. Anyone can vote in them, though, and they can vote for any candidate. Libertarians, Greens, Communists, and many other candidates are often on the ballots.

            And you again falsely stated that slavery exists. If you can cite evidence of slavery, go ahead.

            Also, the 6th Amendment gives the right to speedy jury trials, which exist and which you have the right to. Here are a few examples:

            http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/massachusetts_couple_convicted_craigslist_harassment_calls_it_free_speech_first_amendment.html

            http://fox8.com/2014/08/28/father-found-not-guilty-in-slaying-of-drunk-driver-who-killed-his-sons-in-crash/

            http://www.kcci.com/news/man-claiming-to-be-jesus-in-slaying-not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity/27827138#!bOeYlV

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

          • robertbwinn

            The Patriot Act made it possible for the federal government to arrest and hold without trial any American citizen. But with regard to trials, the last state still giving trials by jury for “all criminal prosecutions” abandoned the practice in the 1990′s, so if you go before a court anywhere in the United States and ask for trial by jury, unless you are accused of murder you are probably going to be told that the crime you are accused of committing is not included in “all criminal prosecutions”. Then you will be given a trial in a European style police state court.
            So we are all slaves to a police state. You like being a slave to a police state; I do not like being a slave to a police state.
            Now with regard to elections, the goal of all political party members is to participate in an election like the ones that were held under Josef Stalin, an election in which the candidates of your party are sure to be elected. So you have the kind of elections you want to have. I would prefer elections in which I am allowed to vote and to be a candidate for office. This is just a small difference in opinion that we have with one another concerning elections.

          • notpilgrims2

            In the War on Terror, we have kept a small number of suspected terrorists (mostly foreigners, not Americans) in indefinite detention.

            In criminal prosecutions, there are some low-level crimes that don’t have jury trials.

            You just pointed out two exceptions to the rules that affect a small minority of all cases.

          • robertbwinn

            Well, so you do not believe the Constitution of the United States. If you do not believe the Sixth Amendment, you do not believe any of it. So you are going to tell me, We believe the Constitution all except for the Sixth Amendment. That does not impress me. All you have said so far is that some criminal prosecutions are not included in all criminal prosecutions. How much harder is it to say no criminal prosections are included in all criminal prosecutions?
            Why don’t you go find some nice party members who will believe your nonsense?

          • notpilgrims2

            1.) You clearly didn’t read my previous comment when I proved that jury trials exist in America and are used for most criminal cases.
            2.) Your logic is flawed from the outset. Even IF there was a part of the Constitution that I didn’t believe in, that wouldn’t prevent me from supporting other parts of it. The Constitution has dozens of amendments. For example, it is completely possible, logically and physically, to support free speech (1st Amendment) but to oppose gun rights (2nd Amendment).

          • robertbwinn

            So you are telling me that you can deny trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions as long as you have one trial by jury to prove that trial by jury exists in the United States. What do you call all of these criminal prosecutions where trial by jury is denied? I call them police state trials because the Constitution guarantees trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions. We understand each other perfectly. You think that you can operate a police state here indefinitely because your political party put one in place.
            So now you are saying you do not support or obey the Sixth or Second Amendments to the Constitution. You do not support or obey any of the Constitution You support and obey your political party and the police state it stands for.
            Sorry about your shrinking little political party. It kind of reminds me of Syrian President Bashar Assad, still in power, but not as impressive as in times past..

          • notpilgrims2

            “So you are telling me that you can deny trial by jury in all criminal
            prosecutions as long as you have one trial by jury to prove that trial
            by jury exists in the United States.”

            We have trial by jury for the vast majority of trials. You can’t cite a small percentage–lets say less than 5%–and say that is evidence that America doesn’t respect trial by juries.

            The exceptions don’t prove the whole. Almost any fact about society has exceptions to it.

          • robertbwinn

            The problem you have is that the vast majority of criminal prosecutions, not a small percentage, are now excluded from the right to trial by jury. The problem we have is that your corrupt political party controls the judicial branch of our government. So we will have to solve the problem. It may take us a long time to do it, but the problem will have to be solved. Otherwise all we have is another European police state. As I said, you like being in a European police state. I would rather live in a free country.

          • notpilgrims2

            Actually, the majority of criminal suspects are afforded the right to a trial by jury.

            Why would it be any other way? You don’t cite specifics, so that leaves me to speculate.

            Some trials don’t go to jury because they are decided by plea bargains, which are agreed to by the suspects. In those cases, the suspects have the right to go to trial, but they decide not to exercise it in exchange for getting a lighter punishment than they would have likely gotten if found guilty.

          • notpilgrims2

            Also, you are allowed to vote in elections, and you can vote for whomever you want, even Communists, Greens, Libertarians, and independents. It is true that Republicans and Democrats have some advantages and also higher levels of support. They end up getting more votes most of the time and winning.

      • notpilgrims2

        The grazing rights aren’t his. He stopped paying for them about 20 years ago.

    • handymanherb

      Your an idiot who has no ideal what is going on or what made America in the first place , friends and neighbors standing against something unjust, not giving in like you would have done, and your not American

      • maccamcfc

        Exactly.

      • maccamcfc

        Exactly.

      • mzeatwzad

        Bundy is a shitbag.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      You can see more about the dissonance and the “thinking” that goes into it below. I trust that your eyes work, it really is visually evident.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      You can see more about the dissonance and the “thinking” that goes into it below. I trust that your eyes work, it really is visually evident.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      You can see more about the dissonance and the “thinking” that goes into it below. I trust that your eyes work, it really is visually evident.

    • notpilgrims2

      If the black lads did that in Ferguson, I’m sure the police would respond to protect themselves (and be justified in doing so). Already they have responded with rubber bullets in response to looting (“I know there was looting”). It is unfortunate that the police don’t apply the same standards to Bundy and respond against his violent threats and his trespassing.

      • Rod Stokes

        How do you know there was looting…/ Because someone on the tube said so….?

        • notpilgrims2

          Um…
          You clearly haven’t been following the Ferguson news. There has been looting at Wal Mart, at other stores, and a gas station burnt down.

          Since you are such an idiot, I will have to provide you sources:
          Ferguson Walmart Looted – http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/11/looting-reported-at-ferguson-walmart/13884055/
          “FERGUSON, Mo. – Between 20 and 25 Walmart employees took shelter inside their Ferguson store Sunday night as rioting and looting ran rampant in the area around them.

          A Walmart store employee told NewsChannel 5 the store was overrun by looters.

          Officers
          barricaded the front of the store, but many looters had already made
          their way inside the store. The employee said they smashed glass cases
          containing electronics, and stole all of the televisions.”

          Gas Station Arsoned – http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saw-ferguson
          “Late in the afternoon on Wednesday, the armored vehicles rolled into
          place just beyond the charred shell of the QuikTrip gas station that was
          burned on the first night of protests.”

          Ferguson Market Looted – http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/08/ferguson-businesses-struggle-to-deal-with-looting/378696/
          “People stand in front of a convenience store after it was looted early Saturday, Aug. 16, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.”

          Multiple Businesses Affected -
          http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/08/ferguson-businesses-struggle-to-deal-with-looting/378696/
          “Looting affected a number of businesses over
          the weekend, including Domino’s Pizza, Papa John’s, an auto parts
          store, grocery shop, technology store, and a storage facility. Windows
          were also broken at the McDonald’s where many journalists have been
          using as their home base, while two of the hardest hit were a local
          liquor store and a QuikTrip gas station that was burned to the ground.”

    • http://www.BR-549.com Junior Samples

      Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times (All shots in front, the witness lied)
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1

    • jim collins

      ok let me correct you on a couple of points,firstly those malitia personel are not playing pretend anything,they are for real.many are seasoned combat vets.secondley the land in dispute does not belong to the feds,the blm only manages it by permission from the state of nevada.clive bundy has always payed his grazing fee to the state of nevada,that land is public land owned by the people of the state vevada.the clive bundy family has been ranching for over 5 generations long before it was a state,so you tell me who is trespassing.but i guess you coming from england you guys are use to being bent over and nailed in the ass,long live the queen huh.your royalty crap is hypocrisy truly at its finest and by the way those malitia personel you called dicks are the same type that kicked jolly old englands ass twice.

      • maccamcfc

        Spelling isn’t your strong point is it mate, so I bet you are one of the pretend hard men who likes to play army, also you are a knobhead.

    • pyrodice

      if ‘the black lads’ had the foresight to be armed, and prepared, you’d have seen Bundy all over again.

    • Katman

      I see your point of view. You have to dig a little deeper though to get more information. Cliven Bundy is kind of a wild guy, but he did indeed have the rights to that land. The BLM said they were going to reclaim it because Harry Reid wanted to make a deal with his Son-in-Law and the Chinese. The real reason they wanted to remove the cattle was because they were going to build a solar energy field on the land. This is public land that should technically still be ok for Bundy to allow his cattle to graze on because his family has used it for that purpose for centuries and within the law, that gives them the right to continue. It’s all about money. Also, in Ferguson protestors were looting. This kind of action cannot go unchecked. Law enforcement has to stop them from stealing innocent people’s property.

  • Bud Machado
  • Keith Davis

    Fuck the police. It’s the Klan in blue.

    • NW10
      • Robert Scalzi

        Yep !!

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        This is a direct result of racism. Treat people badly enough, long enough, and they hate you. Don’t want to be hated? Don’t be hateful and violent toward them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        This is a direct result of racism. Treat people badly enough, long enough, and they hate you. Don’t want to be hated? Don’t be hateful and violent toward them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        This is a direct result of racism. Treat people badly enough, long enough, and they hate you. Don’t want to be hated? Don’t be hateful and violent toward them.

    • handymanherb

      And who are the DEM’s you vote for every time, oh that’s right they told you it was someone else when they let blacks into the KKK

      • Keith Davis

        Thanks for your racist counterpoint handicapherb…

        idiot. ;)

    • handymanherb

      And who are the DEM’s you vote for every time, oh that’s right they told you it was someone else when they let blacks into the KKK

  • http://batman-news.com BamaBonzz

    I don’t recall anyone at the Bundy ranch looting, comitting arson or anything else. I’m not saying they were right in what they were doing, but the comparison here seems like a stretch , to say the least. No one knowa wha

    • Bosma

      Yeah. I only recall them pointing weapons at law enforcement. If only the ferguson people had open carried weapons, amirite…??

    • Mumbles

      The most obvious looter at the Cliven Bundy ranch would be Cliven Bundy, who both loots federal land, and refuses to pay his taxes.

      • CTOH

        Some people just refuse to get it.

    • Razor

      They’re no longer giving lawful orders. Under what authority do they have the right to shut down a McDonald’s and slam a reporter’s head into a door because they wouldn’t leave fast enough?

    • imavettoo

      BamaBonzz, your comment doesn’t make you seem heartless as much as clueless.

    • Robert Scalzi

      Talk about tone deaf – nice try at rationalizing the million dollar looter and all the “law abiding” actions of the white supremacist militia jack asses

    • formerlywhatithink

      Oh for fucks sake, they people at the Bundy ranch were aiming high powered, scoped rifles at law enforcement. Tell me, in what world is that a lesser threat than looting? the only thing that’s different between how the people are the Bundy ranch were treated and how people at Ferguson are being treated is the skin color.

      “Here’s a novel thought for all folks, white, black, red or yellow, when a cop gives you a lawful order, fucking do it, period.”

      Here’s a thought, have ranchers pay their fucking grazing fees instead of threatening federal law enforcement personnel with assault rifles.

      “I’ve heard 6 or 7 versions and they all differ greatly, when the truth is we will never know what happened that night.”

      At the Bundy ranch, there’s Bundy’s version and the governments version. We know what the facts are, yet white people are free to threaten law enforcement with imminent violence without any repercussions.

      Nice double standard, asshole.

    • Hemidemisemiquaver

      “when a cop gives you a lawful order”

      Michael Brown WAS following the police order. Nonetheless, he was shot and killed.

      “responsibility for these events certainly rests in the hands of the victims at times.”

      So, you think some of the blame rests on Michael Brown, an unarmed person who was following police orders.

      Fuck you, you fucking piece of shit. Die in a fire.

    • http://leftsideannie.wordpress.com/ Leftside_Annie

      You’re ignorant. The VAST majority of the protesters were citizens and clergy. The vandalism was done by a very small group – and you, like a typical racist, toss out “those (black) animals were rioting and looting!!” as justification for the militarized action against unarmed civilians. Shame on you.

      • http://www.justplainsomething.com JustPlainSomething

        I’ve actually seen video of the protesters turning away a man trying to join them that they knew was going to cause trouble. The actual protesters were specifically staying peaceful to avoid any justification for violence against them and they’re STILL getting blamed for the violence against them.

    • AlbertBarr

      Bundy had been looting from the government for over a decade.

    • Saren Arterius

      We know more about those looters (by the way, several of them were arrested) than we do about the incident that started everything in the first place.

    • D_C_Wilson

      when a cop gives you a lawful order, fucking do it, period.

      So in other words, when the feds showed up to seize his cattle for unpaid grazing fees, Bundy and his sons should have obeyed the lawful order given by the federal law enforcement agents to get out of the way while they finished carrying out a (lawful) court order. That works for me.

    • A. Cawthorne

      No one knows what happened in Fergason

      I know. I mean, it’s not like there was a witness or anything. How those bullet holes appeared in that kid’s back is a complete mystery.

      Oh, right.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Bundy was stealing. That’s why law enforcement was there.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Bundy was stealing. That’s why law enforcement was there.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Bundy was stealing. That’s why law enforcement was there.

    • Holly Currier

      Well, there is the fact that the rioters/looters and the protesters are two different groups of people…and the peaceful protesters were met by a militarized police force before the looters even showed up.

  • Rolf

    If the police had decided to assault the armed dingbats at Bundy Ranch, it would’ve been another Waco.

  • Guy Incognito

    This is amazingly relevant due to a particular dissertation topic going on that may or may not have to do with this discrepancy and why it does or does not (But come on, it does) exist all over the country.

  • Danny Chia

    Considering the outrage, I’m surprised the people of Missouri haven’t organized some sort of militia. Surely the police would quickly back down at the sight of 1,500 armed citizens…

    • Obi Alfred

      They are stupid and uneducated.

    • hahaheather

      Only if those civilians were white, any other ethnicity and they’re terrorists / thugs / drug runners, But white militias are nice men trying to protect their families…SMH

      • Razor

        Except if they were white, the police never would’ve shot an unarmed kid in the first place.

    • aynwrong

      Or their would be a bloodbath.

      • Danny Chia

        It’s definitely possible for an armed demonstration to end peacefully if everyone takes care to not act on impulse. The Bundy standoff had militia members and police pointing guns at each other, yet miraculously nobody was shot.

        • aynwrong

          “The Bundy standoff had militia members and police pointing guns at each other, ” who were all white, “yet miraculously nobody was shot.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            The only person who has been shot in Ferguson is Michael Brown. To some people that doesn’t count.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            The only person who has been shot in Ferguson is Michael Brown. To some people that doesn’t count.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            The only person who has been shot in Ferguson is Michael Brown. To some people that doesn’t count.

    • Rick Derris

      The left needs to start arming itself.

      • undsoweiter

        Who says we aren’t?

    • CTOH

      Missouri HAS a huge WHITE citizens militia. No blacks need apply. They are there to SUPRESS the non-white population. (They also have a state militia.) Link below is for the ‘KKK’ all-white citizens Militia.

      http://www.missourimilitia.com/

    • CTOH

      Here’s another . There are a bunch of ‘citizen’ militias in MO.

      http://www.constitution.org/mil/mo/mil_usmo.htm

  • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

    Or this:

    The remaining two defendants of 36 accused in the Southern District of Texas of racketeering activities as part of their roles with the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas (ABT) have pleaded guilty, capping a six-year sweeping effort that has led to 73 convictions across five federal districts and the decimation of the gang’s leadership and violent members and associates. Those convicted were charged with involvement in a criminal organization that engaged in murders, kidnappings, brutal beatings, fire bombings and drug trafficking.

    http://www.fbi.gov/houston/press-releases/2014/all-36-charged-aryan-brotherhood-of-texas-members-and-associates-have-pled-guilty-to-federal-racketeering-charges-in-southern-district-of-texas

    Anyone see coverage of this in the MSM?

    • Guest

      Thanks for posting this! I am glad to see them going after gangs! I personally believe they should start executing them in the streets! All gang members white, black, brown, yellow…they are nothing but a drudge on our society.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        So, you’re opposed to Constitutional rights?

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        So, you’re opposed to Constitutional rights?

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        So, you’re opposed to Constitutional rights?

    • handymanherb

      If they were TEA Party members if would have been on around the clock for a month

    • handymanherb

      If they were TEA Party members if would have been on around the clock for a month

  • hahaheather

    I kind of hate that I live in Nevada.

    • Robert Scalzi

      I am glad we have sane Brethren in my neighboring state !! We need more there.

      • hahaheather

        There are far fewer Cliven Bundys than you might think, people like that are not the rule, thank the universe!

        • Robert Scalzi

          I knew that :-) , as a tahoe skier got tons of sane NV friends – it’s turned waay bluer in the last 30 years that’s for sure !

  • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

    Yep.